Question for Arminians

[ReformedBaptist]

Hi Winman,

Wow! I agree with you. Except you didn't really answer the question. It is the same question I asked in a different thread. What is the difference. At some point in the equation there is something which differentiates the man who will be saved from the man who rejects God.... It is easy to see Scripturally why men reject God but what is different in the man who accepts God? Is the difference something God did, or is it something that that man did?

My argument is that at the crossroad upon which the one man takes the path to righteousness and the other to destruction that it is God who makes the difference between those two men and not man. I'm sure you understand this position even if you do not agree with it. But if you don't agree with it then are you arguing that it is something IN that man who is saved that differentiates him from the other? If so then does he not have something outside of Christ to glory in his salvation because while Christ did the lions share of the work it is indeed man who tipped the balance of his soul in favour of his own eternal life?

For post #3...excellent point and good questions. :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

My argument is that at the crossroad upon which the one man takes the path to righteousness and the other to destruction that it is God who makes the difference between those two men and not man. I'm sure you understand this position even if you do not agree with it. But if you don't agree with it then are you arguing that it is something IN that man who is saved that differentiates him from the other? If so then does he not have something outside of Christ to glory in his salvation because while Christ did the lions share of the work it is indeed man who tipped the balance of his soul in favour of his own eternal life?

I understand exactly what you are saying here. While I do not believe God imposes belief upon a man, I do believe God draws men several ways through his word. I can only speak for myself, but when I learned from the word of God that I was a sinner worthy of hell, and then learned that despite my ungodliness Jesus loved me and died for me, I was drawn by his love and mercy. I was also drawn by a fear of God.

I believe God allures us.

Hos 2:14 Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her.

Song of Sol 1:4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

I think the word allure pertains to the emotions. As a man courts a girl showing her affection, kindness, and honor, he allures or draws her to himself.

I believe God persuades us, this is said many times in the scriptures.

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Now, this is more an appeal to the intellect. While some men might not be moved by the loving mercy of Jesus, they may be drawn by common sense and reasoning. An intelligent man knows that he does not want to go to Hell and be punished forever, so he will repent and come to Christ. An intellectual may be convinced by an awareness that creation itself proves there is an intelligent Creator who made all things, and may be convinced by the study and science of the scriptures.

And while some are attracted to the love and mercy of Christ, others respond for fear of God.

Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

So, I think God draws a man through both the emotions and intellect. And these are God given abilities given to all men. Even the natural man has emotions and intellectual abilities.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I understand exactly what you are saying here. While I do not believe God imposes belief upon a man, I do believe God draws men several ways through his word. I can only speak for myself, but when I learned from the word of God that I was a sinner worthy of hell, and then learned that despite my ungodliness Jesus loved me and died for me, I was drawn by his love and mercy. I was also drawn by a fear of God.

I believe God allures us.

Hos 2:14 Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her.

Song of Sol 1:4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

I think the word allure pertains to the emotions. As a man courts a girl showing her affection, kindness, and honor, he allures or draws her to himself.

I believe God persuades us, this is said many times in the scriptures.

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Now, this is more an appeal to the intellect. While some men might not be moved by the loving mercy of Jesus, they may be drawn by common sense and reasoning. An intelligent man knows that he does not want to go to Hell and be punished forever, so he will repent and come to Christ. An intellectual may be convinced by an awareness that creation itself proves there is an intelligent Creator who made all things, and may be convinced by the study and science of the scriptures.

And while some are attracted to the love and mercy of Christ, others respond for fear of God.

Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

So, I think God draws a man through both the emotions and intellect. And these are God given abilities given to all men. Even the natural man has emotions and intellectual abilities.

It looks like you have proven his point. You are arguing there is something IN man that makes a difference.

 

[Winman]

It looks like you have proven his point. You are arguing there is something IN man that makes a difference.

Well, that may offend you, but only because you accept your pre-conceived doctrine as correct. The question is, is it?

You believe faith is a gift of God and that a man cannot have faith unless God first regenerates a man. But the scriptures say that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Nowhere in scripture does it say a natural man cannot hear the word of God. In fact, Jesus said "he that hath ears, let him hear". So it was God's will that man hear.

And the scriptures hold a man 100% responsible for believeing God's word.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Now, if a man can only have faith if God gives it to him, then how can a just God hold a man accountable for not having faith?

Matt 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

This verse makes no sense if what you believe is true. First, Jesus would have already known why they had little faith. And second, why would he rebuke them?

Couldn't his disciples have justly answered, "Lord the reason we have so little faith and feared is because you only gave us a little faith"??

I mean, come on, how can you demand something from someone when they can only obtain it from you and you didn't give it to them? The idea is absurd.

And when the disciples asked Jesus to increase their faith, what did he say?

Luke 17:5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

If faith is a gift from God, then the disciples request was absolutely reasonable. But Jesus turned it around and said to them "If YE had faith". He puts the responsibility for having faith squarely on their shoulders.

But, if you approach the scriptures with a bias that believes a man can only have faith if God gives it to him, then none of these scriptures will make a bit of sense.

If I am misrepresenting these scriptures I just showed, then show me their correct interpretation please.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, that may offend you, but only because you accept your pre-conceived doctrine as correct. The question is, is it?

You believe faith is a gift of God and that a man cannot have faith unless God first regenerates a man. But the scriptures say that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Nowhere in scripture does it say a natural man cannot hear the word of God. In fact, Jesus said "he that hath ears, let him hear". So it was God's will that man hear.

And the scriptures hold a man 100% responsible for believeing God's word.

A word of advice. If you care for another man's soul, like you claim to care about mine, then you don't start by trying to convince him of his error by slapping him in the face.

I could equally say that you reject the doctrines of grace as taught in the Scriptures because your offended by the Soveregnty of God over your salvation and everyone else for that matter. You love God except when He is on His throne.

Would that be a fair statement about you? I don't think so. And it would add nothing to my argument but it would take away from my character.

THis is what you have done. Stop this silly talking winman. It's making you look like a fool.

My preconcived doctrine was undone by the Scriptures on the subjects we are discussing. Like you, I was taught in churches the same kinds of things your trying to teach me. Men gave me my preconcieved doctrines that I brought to the Scriptures. It was when I sought the Lord on these subjects through the Scriptures that I came to change my view.

While I believe you think your argument is sound, you are failing to address some very simple things I have already stated. No one who holds a different opinion that you who is called a calvinist, as I am, negates the means in any way that God brings faith to the sinner.

Yes, faith is the gift of God. And the preaching of the Gospel is the means by which God creates faith in the hearts of them He foreknew. Not everyone who hears believes. But everyone who has been given by the Father to the Son comes to Jesus seeing and believing. Of all that the Father has given to Jesus He will lose none-save the son of perdition that the Scripture may be fulfilled.

You believe faith is a gift of God and that a man cannot have faith unless God first regenerates a man. But the scriptures say that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Nowhere in scripture does it say a natural man cannot hear the word of God. In fact, Jesus said "he that hath ears, let him hear". So it was God's will that man hear.

Winman, this is what is a called a strawman. Pure and in its classic form! Yes, I believe faith is the gift of God. There is nothing man has that he has not recieved. And man cannot have saving faith, seeing, believing, coming to Jesus, unless God first does the work.

But I have never taught on these forums or elsewhere that the natual man cannot hear the Word of God. The Bible teaches that the natural man cannot understand it. To the unregenerate man, the natural man, the preaching of the cross is foolishness. But to those of us who are being saved, it is the power of God.

It's as almost if you are making me out to be someone who doesn't believe we should preach the Gospel to all men! God forbid! The Lord has ordained in His wisdom that through preaching to save them that believe.

We must stop making these lines fuzzy about God's soveregnty over the salvation of souls and the means by which HE alone saves sinners.

Man does not save himself. I do not think you believe that. God saves them. Calvinism, of which you have made yourself an enemy of, does not teach that God saves men apart from repentance and faith.

Our calling is our election. "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called"

"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"

God's calling whereby men are saved are equated here with His election of them. That is the Scripture. And I am not going to bring a preconcieved idea to the text to try to make it say something it isn't!

What we see (we being those labeled calvinists) in our brothers who disagree with us is a message that says, "Yes, it is all of grace, but...." Our message is "It is all of grace, period." They message we hear in the pulpits seesm to say, "It is of your choice that you are in Christ Jesus."

But with the Scripture we say, "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

 

[ReformedBaptist]

NOw that this the above is clear, let's address this:

If I am misrepresenting these scriptures I just showed, then show me their correct interpretation please.

Now that is encouraging. this is truly a statement of humility. Praise the Lord!

Concerning Luke 17:5

The disciples are asking the Lord to increase their faith. Or in another place, "Lord I believe, help my unbelief." How is this not a statement of where true faith, the kind the apostles themselves looked for, comes from?

It shows that the Lord is both the author and finisher of our faith.

Yet if we look at the Scripture, we see that neither Luke, or the parallel texts are teaching such as a thing as man as saving faith in and of himself! Look at Matthew 17:20 as a parraell text.


But back to our point, it is seems plainly obviously to me that the apostles sensed their weakness to even increase their faith slightly so as to forgive their brother if he sins against him seven times.

And Jesus says, essentially, it's not the largeness of your faith..but even faith as a mustard seed, a tiny bit, moves mountains.

And if the increase of it is from the Lord, is the orignation of it from man? God forbid! It is not in man to orginate this faith from himself nor to increase it from himself. It is the work of GOd.


Jesus tells them in answer to their question on why they could not cast a demon out, that is was because of their unbelief. Were these men not saved? God forbid! It is not about salvation here. And then Jesus goes on to describe the quality of faith, true faith. Faith, as it were, to cast out demons, open blind eyes, cleanse lepers, raise the dead...the things the apostles were to do.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Winman, this Scripture is not the least bit salvific. God is not saying to the unregenerate man, "If you lack wisdom, ask of God."

He is saying this to the man who is born of GOd. Nor is the text telling the man to ask for faith. It is a text teaching on asking God for wisdom, sophia.

And the asking in faith, has nothing to do with salvation. But a Christian being a double-minded person. In other words, if you seek wisdom for this or that, but are intent on your way and feign that you want God's wisdom, don't expect to receive it. lol

Whatever we ask according to God's will and His divine promises will be granted us. So let us not have doubts, like Peter who doubted at the Word of God and began to sink into the sea, but be strong in the faith not wavering.

And yes, by us hearing the Scriptures read, reading them, and hearing the Scriptures preached, we may strengthen our faith.

Yet for all this, all these things ought to be regard as gifts and grace from God. And we should look to Him and Him alone, and not to ourselves, for such things.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I mean, come on, how can you demand something from someone when they can only obtain it from you and you didn't give it to them? The idea is absurd.

Now, I think by the above posts I have shown that what they were asking is not absurd when we understand that our faith also is from God and by His grace.

Consider, "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;" Romans 12:6

The text about spiritual gifts, yet speaks of us ministering in them according to the proportion of faith. And the gifts given to us are by His grace, so let us use them in proportion to our faith.

It's not a matter of "Lord you only gave me so much.." But rather, "Lord, increase my faith."

So, what I had before, Lord it was from you...and if I am to grow stronger in my faith, Lord, it is from you. Increase my faith Lord.

This is not absurd at all.

Maybe this analogy is bad, but I think of it like this. I am a begger. And the Master has given me some food, and clothing, and shelter. And I am so happy and thankful that I am desiring to serve Him more. So, I entreat Him and say, "Lord, I have so much that you have given me, please increase my goods that I may serve you more."

It's like I am at a point where I feel that my faith is not sufficient for the task of ministry, or perhaps a difficult situation or trial, and since I know that the faith I do have is from Him, I come to Him again asking for an increase.

 

[Rippon]

Now, if a man can only have faith if God gives it to him, then how can a just God hold a man accountable for not having faith?

Wait a minute. Don't you believe that a person is responsible for their sins? If God chooses not to give some faith -- that's His right. People can't claim that God is unjust because the Lord gives faith to whomsoever He pleases. You can't boss God around like that. he is Lord -- not you.

If faith is a gift from God,

No ifs,or buts about it. God gives faith to those He so desires.

But, if you approach the scriptures with a bias that believes a man can only have faith if God gives it to him,

I approach Scripture with the idea that people can't regenerate themselves. When one has faith -- God placed it there as a gift. It is super-natural. People do not have the ability,might,insight,strength of character,will-power nor anything else --- because folks are dead in their sins! They are helpless and actual enemies with God.The faith that is given is an alien faith -- just as the righteousness they receive is an alien righteousness. Saving faith is not manufactured by people -- it is not internally derived -- but bestowed outside of themselves by the Lord.

 

[Winman]

Wait a minute. Don't you believe that a person is responsible for their sins? If God chooses not to give some faith -- that's His right. People can't claim that God is unjust because the Lord gives faith to whomsoever He pleases. You can't boss God around like that. he is Lord -- not you.

No, a person cannot be held responsible for something outside their control. That is the very definition of responsible. Here is the definition for responsible.

1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often fol. by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
2. involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually fol. by for): Termites were responsible for the damage.
4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.

If I was born a sinner and have no choice but to sin, then that is out of my control. I cannot be held personally responsible for that.

See #4- If I do not have the capacity for moral decisions, if I am enslaved by sin and can only sin, then I cannot be held responsible.

Why do our courts not try little children, the mentally handicapped, or the truly insane? Because they do not have the capacity to understand their actions and are therefore not responsible.

Everybody in the world understands this except Calvinists.

 

[WITBOTL]

Hi Winman,

My apologies for talking some time to respond, but one thing or another has kept me from taking the time that your response deserved. I’d like to say that I try to read this forum (and post on it a handful of times) really for my own edification and hopefully I can learn a thing or two.

It is very convenient for either side of the Arminian-Calvinist debate to each take a position assuming their own theology is correct as systematized by the system they espouse and then take to arguing that system as incarnate truth instead of recognizing that both are systems devised by man to try to explain in a connected way what is understood in the word of God. I think we would all agree without dispute that both systems cannot be right and that whichever one is incorrect, it is such because of the fallibility of man, not the Word of God. And, certainly as these are both fallible systems devised to understand infallible truth it is also possible that both systems are in error. Though I don’t take this position I only say all this to point out that we should all approach this issue with a little humility, not as an admission of the fallibility of the Word of God or even the error of your system, but with an understanding that as a fallible human being indeed, you may have misunderstood what the bible teaches. These discussions should be for our own edification and not the bickering and mud slinging that so often goes on which is both tiresome and embarrassing.

I have some conviction about what the Word of God teaches and I believe what I believe with conviction. If I am in error I pray that God will reveal it to me and you or anyone else can at best only be an instrument in that process. I also pray that if you are in error that God will reveal it to you and if I am instrumental in that revelation then it is only to MY benefit.

Anyways, let me get off that horse to address a couple of things. Let me say that I appreciate the discussion as you have presented it and I admit you have given me some things to think about. And this process I believe HAS been edifying and enjoyable. Let me respectfully suggest that I perceive you have a few misconceptions concerning the nature of some of the things we are talking about and that these misconceptions are perhaps leading you to your position. Yes, this could also be described as a preconceived idea which causes you to misinterpret scripture. Well, now I have suggested that you are guilty of what you suggest Calvinists are guilty of. Well, I hope instead of being insulted you will follow this rambling text and consider what I’m saying (though I admit I am winging it a bit here and I hope I’m not crazy )

Before I highlight where I perceive you are misconceiving the nature of some of the things discussed let me share with you a silly thought experiment that I went through that I hope will be helpful. In contemplating your position on faith and its position on salvation (really I was contemplating what you said instead of just dismissing it outright as the error of an Arminian) I started looking in the New Testament where faith is used and reading some of these passages. I noticed something (not hard to notice I admit) which is that faith (or the greek pistis) is used in two ways (for the sake of this discussion). One as a noun (pistis) and the other as a verb (pisteuo) I got to thinking about this a bit and I found it slightly curious. Here we have faith described as both an action AND as a thing. In other words faith appears to be something you can possess and it appears to be something you can do. So then I asked myself this question which I put to you: Can you believe (pisteuo) without possessing faith (pistis) Also, can you possess faith without believing. While the more contentious amongst us may try to debate this a bit I believe we could come to some consensus that neither proposition is possible. The man who possesses faith believes AND the man who believes possesses faith. Neither one precedes the other neither one causes the other, the are essentially two aspects of exactly the same thing. Faith that is possessed is acted and faith that is acted is possessed.

So, then I started looking at this in terms of regeneration and faith and I asked this question. Can a man possess regeneration without possessing faith? (Something Arminians would claim Calvinists teach) But to turn it around a bit is it possible to possess faith without possessing regeneration? I suggest to you just as faith is parcel to believing as believing is parcel to faith so is regeneration parcel to faith as faith is parcel to regeneration. In the context of salvation and soteriological doctrine both are two aspects of the same thing. So there is a bit of an absurdity in suggesting one precedes the other because one cannot possess one WITHOUT the other, either way.

So this leads me to what I perceive are some of your misconceptions. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your thinking. It seems to me that you conceive of faith as a mechanism for achieving salvation/regeneration/justification etc. In other words it would seem to me that you look at faith as a light switch which “turns on” life (ie. Regeneration) I think this is one of the roots of your error. I don’t believe the expressions in the bible on the role of faith in salvation necessitate understanding faith as a mechanism or light switch at all. If you carefully study how the New Testament uses faith (or in verb form believe) you will find it is not as a mechanism for salvation so much as a conduit through which life/justification/regeneration is continually communicated beginning at the moment of salvation. Similarly I perceive a tendency to think about salvation or regeneration or justification and the communication of it as the communication of a discreet package if you will that is delivered upon the enacting of the mechanism of faith. I hope that poorly worded description makes sense. Instead I suggest that the life which we obtain beginning when we are regenerated is then continually communicated and sustained through the conduit of faith. It is not merely a one time deal, but a “deal” that begins at regeneration and continues through eternity via faith. In other words faith does not obtain it, faith is the means by which that life is transmitted if you will.

You see, if regeneration precedes faith then we have a problem that regeneration existed without faith. But by the same token if faith precedes regeneration we have the problem that faith existed without regeneration. I’d like to suggest that neither is the case and that God GIVES man faith IN regeneration through which that life flows. Because they are simultaneous one does not cause the other, but the operation of God in salvation giving both life and faith CAUSE both. You see, “He that believeth on the son of God HATH everlasting life” it doesn’t say He that believeth gets or will get everlasting life. Life exists simultaneously with faith.

So, if you believe you will be saved (believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved) but the believing isn’t what is DOING it is God that is DOING it.

Incidentally, I hear so many people say “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” and they go on to say that this says “Faith cometh by hearing the Word of God” and this verse does not say that. It says that hearing cometh by the Word of God (Rhema not Logos) Rhema is rightly understood as the utterance of God and can I go out on a limb (not being a greek scholar) to suggest that it indicates a particular utterance in contrast to a general existence of a “Word of God” Just something to think about.

Also, I would like to point out that I don’t believe anyone is ever held accountable for their faith. If this were true then perhaps our salvation is not so secure, especially if our faith is generated within us apart from a new life in Christ. What men are held accountable for is their sin and thankfully for us who have been washed in Jesus’ blood that accountability is satisfied in him. We are not judged one way or another by our faith, but by our sins. Our responsibility is not for faith, our responsibility is to Love the Lord our God with all our hearts, soul and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves. That is every man’s responsibility before God (not faith) Faith is about GRACE and we shouldn’t make it our responsibility for that also makes it our work and faith is not our work. I would suggest Faith IS grace.

God does not demand faith from us at all, he demands righteousness and holiness. Now would you suggest that the natural man is capable of righteousness and holiness? I think the bible establishes clearly that he is not. If not, does it make God unjust to demand such? “Be ye holy for I am holy” If God demanded faith and held us accountable for faith then indeed faith would be a work and our salvation would be by works and not by grace. I do not mean to suggest that faith is not required by the way, I’m saying it is not a demand. Just as believing without faith is absurd so is life without (that kind of) faith.

 

[Rippon]

If I was born a sinner and have no choice but to sin, then that is out of my control. I cannot be held personally responsible for that.

Fortunately, those guidelines are just your own and not God's. Do you believe the Bible when it says "The soul that sinneth -- it shall die"?

"Without holiness no one will see the Lord." Those without Christ's righteousness will be consigned to everlasting perdition.

if I am enslaved by sin and can only sin, then I cannot be held responsible.

Your personal philosophy and sense of what seems equitable to you are at odds with Holy Writ. You need to get biblical.

Why do our courts not try little children, the mentally handicapped, or the truly insane? Because they do not have the capacity to understand their actions and are therefore not responsible.

Everyone comes into this world as a sinner. Sinners need a Savior. No one is innocent. All of us are accountable -- the sins of some have been laid on Christ and His crosswork. For the others -- they will suffer eternally in the miseries of the second death. There is no middle ground.

Everybody in the world understands this except Calvinists.

We understand that you are speaking extra-biblically -- and hence against what the Bible teaches.

 

[Winman]

WITBOTL

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate that you believe I am sincere. I do disagree with some things you said.

So, then I started looking at this in terms of regeneration and faith and I asked this question. Can a man possess regeneration without possessing faith? (Something Arminians would claim Calvinists teach) But to turn it around a bit is it possible to possess faith without possessing regeneration? I suggest to you just as faith is parcel to believing as believing is parcel to faith so is regeneration parcel to faith as faith is parcel to regeneration. In the context of salvation and soteriological doctrine both are two aspects of the same thing. So there is a bit of an absurdity in suggesting one precedes the other because one cannot possess one WITHOUT the other, either way.

If I understand you, you seem to believe that a man can only have faith if he is regerenerated. This is where we disagree. All men have faith, but not all men have faith in the same object. Some believe in Mohammed, some believe in Budda, some believe in Christ. The Bible clearly shows a man can have faith in false gods.

Isa 42:17 They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods.

So this is where I disagree with Calvinists (although I do not call myself an Arminian, I disagree with them on some points). If faith comes only from God, then those who place their faith in graven and molten images got this faith from God. This would make God the author of sin.

And I see God holding man completely responsible for where he places his faith, the verse I just showed shows this, God saying they shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed.

Have you ever noticed that Jesus always spoke of faith as belonging to the person he was addressing?

Matt 9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Matt 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

So Jesus himself here said "thy faith". I think that is pretty clear. And why would Jesus marvel at the faith of the centurion if Jesus gave this man his great faith?

Matt 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

To me, you just can't get around this. Why would Jesus who is God marvel? That is a fantastic thing to say in of itself. And what was he marvelling at? The great faith of this centurion. Jesus said he had not found such great faith in all of Israel.

Now, if God gave the centurion this faith, don't you think God would know it? Then why would Jesus marvel?

And you can go on and on. Jesus told Peter he would pray that Peter's faith not fail.

Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

I do not understand how Calvinists overlook this. The Bible repeatedly says faith belongs to the person.

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

The Bible says the devils believe. They have faith, the Bible says so. Are they saved? Are they regenerated? Did God give them this faith?

So I completely disagree with this Calvinist doctrine. I did not arrive at my belief by any teaching from man, I came to this conclusion by reading the scriptures and noticing that faith was always said to belong to the person. Some were complimented for their great faith, some were rebuked for lack of faith. I believe the scriptures make it abundantly clear that men have the abilily to have faith and that God holds them accountable for this.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So this is where I disagree with Calvinists (although I do not call myself an Arminian, I disagree with them on some points). If faith comes only from God, then those who place their faith in graven and molten images got this faith from God. This would make God the author of sin.

What we are talking about is true saving, biblical faith in the true and living God. This faith only comes from God. The Bible says its a gift. So, that is what we believe. Other people trust false gods. They do not have biblical saving faith.

So, because of this, your reasoning doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The Bible says the devils believe. They have faith, the Bible says so. Are they saved? Are they regenerated? Did God give them this faith?

So I completely disagree with this Calvinist doctrine. I did not arrive at my belief by any teaching from man, I came to this conclusion by reading the scriptures and noticing that faith was always said to belong to the person. Some were complimented for their great faith, some were rebuked for lack of faith. I believe the scriptures make it abundantly clear that men have the abilily to have faith and that God holds them accountable for this.

To yoru first part, the whole point of the apostle talking about demons and their belief in god is to highlight the difference between belief and true faith. Faith without works is dead. et.

True biblical faith is a gift of God. Even demons have beliefs.

I did not arrive at my understanding by any teaching from man either. I came to this conclusion by reading the Scriptures and noticing that faith is a gift from God that a person exercises.

I believe the Scriptures are abundantly clear that man is totally unable to come to God on his own unless the Lord draws that person and saves them. If God does not do this, that person will love his own sin and continue in it till death, and recieve the just condemnation for his or her actions.

 

[Winman]

I believe the Scriptures are abundantly clear that man is totally unable to come to God on his own unless the Lord draws that person and saves them. If God does not do this, that person will love his own sin and continue in it till death, and recieve the just condemnation for his or her actions.

I agree with you that man cannot come to God unless drawn by God. Where we differ is that I believe God draws all men, where you believe God only draws a few fortunate elect and allows the rest to perish. And according to your own doctrine, it is not so much that man continues in sin, according to you he is 100% enslaved by sin and cannot escape it without God's grace.

The Bible is very clear that God is not willing that any should perish.

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The Bible is also clear that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Now, how do you explain this? 2 Pet 3:9 specifically says it is not God's will that any should perish. Cannot God carry out his own will?

And Eze 18:32 says that God has no pleasure in the death of him that dies. So why aren't all men saved?

And the Bible also speaks of God's great mercy. Have you ever read Psalms 136? Look how many times it mentions God's mercy.

Psa 136:1 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.
3 O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
4 To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever.
5 To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.
6 To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.
7 To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever:
8 The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever:
9 The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever.
10 To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever:
11 And brought out Israel from among them: for his mercy endureth for ever:
12 With a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm: for his mercy endureth for ever.
13 To him which divided the Red sea into parts: for his mercy endureth for ever:
14 And made Israel to pass through the midst of it: for his mercy endureth for ever:
15 But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea: for his mercy endureth for ever.
16 To him which led his people through the wilderness: for his mercy endureth for ever.
17 To him which smote great kings: for his mercy endureth for ever:
18 And slew famous kings: for his mercy endureth for ever:
19 Sihon king of the Amorites: for his mercy endureth for ever:
20 And Og the king of Bashan: for his mercy endureth for ever:
21 And gave their land for an heritage: for his mercy endureth for ever:
22 Even an heritage unto Israel his servant: for his mercy endureth for ever.
23 Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever:
24 And hath redeemed us from our enemies: for his mercy endureth for ever.
25 Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy endureth for ever.
26 O give thanks unto the God of heaven: for his mercy endureth for ever.

I think it is abundantly clear that God is very merciful.

So, if all men are equally alike sinners, why does God choose to save only certain men, and let the others perish? Couldn't God save all men if he so chose to?

If God is not willing any should perish, then why does he let some men perish? If God takes no pleasure in the death of any who dies, then why does God let some men perish? If God's mercy endures forever, then why does he let some men perish?

Could you attempt to answer this please? And not the ol' "God can do anything he wants" I've heard half a dozen times. A real answer with real substance please.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Hey winman,

I agree with you that man cannot come to God unless drawn by God. Where we differ is that I believe God draws all men, where you believe God only draws a few fortunate elect and allows the rest to perish. And according to your own doctrine, it is not so much that man continues in sin, according to you he is 100% enslaved by sin and cannot escape it without God's grace.

Thanks for your reply. I do believe man is enslaved to sin. I believe this because of John 8:34 "Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."

Other translations use the word slave. doulos in the greek, and means slave. And it is the Son only that can make us free. "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." verse 36.

So yes, I believe Jesus taught that if we commit sins, we are slaves of sin, and need to be freed by the Son of God.

The Bible is very clear that God is not willing that any should perish. Now, how do you explain this? 2 Pet 3:9 specifically says it is not God's will that any should perish. Cannot God carry out his own will?

The way I seek to understand this text, 2 Peter 3:9, is to not beyond the text itself. What we are discussing is who God is talking about here in 2 Peter. The verse reads:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Who is the "us-ward" or us? Let the text tell us that. Is it the scoffers in verse 3? No, I don't think so. starting with the verse and moving out to gain the context, he is speaking of believers.

So, we have to conclude that the text is saying that God is not willing for believers to perish, but for all believers (present and future) to come to repentance.

If I have gone outside the scope of the Scripture, in other words, used a context wrong, please shrae with me how.

And Eze 18:32 says that God has no pleasure in the death of him that dies. So why aren't all men saved?

Who said to begin with that if God raises up a Pharoah, fitted for destruction, that He has pleasure in it?

And the Bible also speaks of God's great mercy. Have you ever read Psalms 136? Look how many times it mentions God's mercy.

Yes, I have read Psalms 136. Have you read Romans 9? GOd has mercy on whom He wills, and compassion on whom He wills, and hardens whom He wills.

No one is questioning the mercy of God. I just think people are generally uncomfortable with His absolute sovereignty.

So, if all men are equally alike sinners, why does God choose to save only certain men, and let the others perish? Couldn't God save all men if he so chose to?

Yes, God could save all men if He chose to do so. No one here is questioning God's ability. As to why God chooses some and leaves others in their sin is known only to God.

However, it is not hap hazard. Again, not going beyond what is revealed in Scripture, we have our answer. Ephesians 1:4-5 says

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,


So, it is because of the good pleasure of His will...

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

For His glory.

Matthew 11:25 says, "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

So God hid things from some people and revealed them to others. Luke 10:21, a parallel text, also says, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight."

Because it seemed good to God to do. That is His answer. And because I am a man, a creation, and not an infinte God, I cannot and will not presume to judge God good or evil for His choices. If He chose to pass one person over and choose another, then it is right, good, just, holy, et.

I don't think this is a brush off answer. It is the answer Scripture gives. And perhaps another can shed more insight, but the bottom line answer to why is becaue it seems good to God.

RB

 

[Winman]

Who is the "us-ward" or us? Let the text tell us that. Is it the scoffers in verse 3? No, I don't think so. starting with the verse and moving out to gain the context, he is speaking of believers.

Well, I have a problem with this. If the doctrine of Irresistable Grace is true, then it is impossible for the regenerated man not to repent. And it would be impossible for him to perish. And why would God be long-suffering? God can cause a man to believe any time he wants to if your doctrine is correct.

Now, on the other hand, if "us-ward" means all men or all mankind, then this verse makes sense. It is showing that God is being as patient with the unsaved as he possibly can be, giving them every chance and opportunity to repent.

And scripture shows this.

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Here the Lord said he gave Jezebel "space" to repent but that she would not.
Now, this completely contradicts Calvinism. If God wanted her to repent (which he clearly does), he would simply regenerate her and she would have repented.

And notice in verse 22 that God has not given up on those who commited spiritual fornication with her, but God is still offering these people a chance to repent.

 

[Winman]

Gotta go to work, be back tomorrow.

 

[webdog]

Well, I have a problem with this. If the doctrine of Irresistable Grace is true, then it is impossible for the regenerated man not to repent. And it would be impossible for him to perish. And why would God be long-suffering? God can cause a man to believe any time he wants to if your doctrine is correct.

Now, on the other hand, if "us-ward" means all men or all mankind, then this verse makes sense. It is showing that God is being as patient with the unsaved as he possibly can be, giving them every chance and opportunity to repent.

And scripture shows this.

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Here the Lord said he gave Jezebel "space" to repent but that she would not.
Now, this completely contradicts Calvinism. If God wanted her to repent (which he clearly does), he would simply regenerate her and she would have repented.

And notice in verse 22 that God has not given up on those who commited spiritual fornication with her, but God is still offering these people a chance to repent.

If the "us ward" are the elect as calvinism claims, it makes no sense for "not wanting any to perish" to be included in the text unless some of the "us ward" could perish.