Featured Why Arminianism can rot your bones

The reason is the assertion is fiction. Yeshua1 asks me to teach him how to support his fiction. Calvinists simply post nonsense to defend their false doctrine. They misrepresent their opponent, i.e. like suggesting we believe everyone is not spiritually dead, rather than support their premise that being spiritually dead means a person cannot seek God. The reason is the bible is full of examples of spiritually dead people seeking God, for example Matthew 13:1-30 and Matthew 23:13.

 

just how do you see us spiritual sense , as regarding to what happened to us as a direct result of the fall of adam?

 

hiyas

I'm a calvinist baptist., premil and dispensational. Christ did die for all mankind, there is a common call that is given to all for their forgiveness of sins, which everyone rejects, and then there is a effectual call that is to God's elect, in which he more or less makes you see the truth. Therefore yes, Christ did die for the whole world, but everyone being depraved and wicked rejects it, and so God reaches into certain individuals chosen before time, and opens their spiritual blindness to bring them unto faith. John 15:16, Ephesians 1:4-11, Romans 9:11.

 

As a Reformed Baptist I certainly hold to the five points of Calvinism and the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.

When it comes to a discussion of the atonement, there are some key concepts that we all must consider. First of all, we must ask ourselves if the term 'mankind' or 'world' in scripture refers to every single man, woman, and child that ever lived. I mean, even in modern English, don't we often use 'global' terminology in a limited sense? When you have a really bad day, or when things go against you, we might say that 'the whole world is against me'. Does that mean that every single man, woman, and child on the planet is against you? Does this include dead people, or only living people?

For this reason we must perform a proper exegesis of scripture. We cannot just take a verse out of context, and make it say something that the author did not intend to say. Look at the original language, look at the context in the passage, and look at how the passage fits into the entire Bible.

It seems that anti-Calvinists such as Van differ on almost every point with Calvinists. First, they don't hold to people being naturally spiritually dead in sins. Or if they DO hold to this, they don't believe that the natural man is ALWAYS dead in sins. The problem with this view is that if some people are more 'spiritually alive' then others, they can lay claim to their own salvation.

As for Unconditional Election, Arminians claim that God saves people not based on anything that they have done, but because of God's mercy. Yet the truth is that if you honestly believe that faith on the part of the believer MUST come before regeneration, and that a person MUST have faith BEFORE God does anything else, then you have just made salvation works-based. In other words, a person, who is dead in sins, must FIRST have faith before God does anything else. So God's decision to save is based on man's decision to first believe, before God even replaced that person's heart of stone with a heart of flesh. This flies directly in the face of what Paul says to the Ephesians concerning faith being a gift from God. Consider the example of Lazarus. He was TRULY DEAD. When Christ commanded him to come forth, Jesus didn't ask Lazarus: "would you please come out?" Lazarus did not say: "no thanks Lord, I love it in here." He came out. That is the power of Christ, the power of salvation. It also reveals the dead-state of man, who is UNWILLING to bend the knee to Christ.

As for Limited Atonement, we all must really think deeply about what this means. Ask yourself: Who did Christ die for? Who is he mediating for right now? Who is he interceding on behalf of to the Father? Whose sins did he actually pay for? If you honestly believe that Christ fully paid for ALL sins of ALL mankind (including those who have long been dead), then there is absolutely no logical reason why ANYONE should go to hell. I mean, it would be a case of double jeopardy for the unbeliever to be punished after someone (Jesus) took the punishment. Jesus apparently paid for their sins (he bore the wrath of God), yet they get to pay for their sins again in Hell. How does that make sense? Is Jesus currently interceding to the Father for the atheists? What about the Amorite High-Priest, who was engaging in child-sacrifice before an Israelite sword cut him down? It is interesting how God used the Israelites to completely wipe out the Amorites after their iniquities had been complete. Did Jesus die for that Amorite high-priest? Do we really believe that the blood of Christ has covered every single man, woman, and child that ever lived? Does that mean the unbeliever, in hell, can stand up and say that he overcame the blood of the lamb that cleansed him? Does Jesus' blood only have power if humans 'allow' it to have power?

Consider this scenario: when 100 atheists hear the same sermon, and only 10 of them accept Christ, is this because God effectually called 10 of them, or is it because God called ALL of them EQUALLY, and some of them had enough 'spiritual life', 'intelligence', or 'genetic ability' to accept Christ on their own? This is the dilemma that Arminians face. If God CALLS EVERYONE EQUALLY, then the reason why some people accept Christ and some don't CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN MAN. If God DOES NOT CALL EVERYONE EQUALLY, then salvation is truly from God, and the atonement is indeed limited (because not every is saved, and not everyone is effectually called). The only way around this dilemma is to believe in Universalism, which I don't think anyone here wishes to do.

As for perseverance of the saints, that goes out the window as well when you hold to man's autonomous free will. I mean, if man's autonomous free-will brought him into relationship with Christ, then why can't man's autonomous free-will get him out of relationship with Christ? If God must respect man's free will before salvation, certainly he will respect man's free will after salvation, right? Or should we believe that man LOSES his free-will when he becomes a Christian?

That is why the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) are important. They also are CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER. One cannot be a four-point calvinist and be consistent in their argumentation or in their interpretation of scripture. All five points of Calvinism stand or fall together.

Lastly, I would like to ask if any Arminians have actually read the works of James Arminius. I am currently 1/3 the way through his writings, and it seems that he would in fact agree with Calvin on almost every point (I have yet to find a point where he would disagree with Calvin). Consider what Arminius says concerning Predestination:

"Predestination, therefore, as it regards the thing itself, is the decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which he resolved within himself from all eternity, to justify, adopt and endow with everlasting life, to the praise of his own glorious grace, believers on whom he had decreed to bestow faith." (Disputation 15, Chapter II)

"The Cause of this decree is God, "according to the good pleasure" or the benevolent affection "of his own will." (Ephes. i. 5.) And God indeed is the cause, as possessing the right of determining as he wills both about men as his creatures, and especially as sinners, and about his blessings, (Jer. xviii. 6; Matt. xx. 14, 15,) "according to the good pleasure of his own will," by which, being moved with and in himself, he made that decree. This "good pleasure" not only excludes every cause which it could take from man, or which it could be imagined to take from him; but it likewise removes whatever was in or from man, that could justly move God not to make that gracious decree. (Rom. xi. 34, 35.)" (Disputation 15, Chapter IV)

These are just a few of many quotes from Arminius that support the very doctrines that Calvinists hold to. That is why I find that many Arminians have gone very far astray from what Arminius himself ever taught. I honestly recommend that anyone who is anti-Calvinist read the works of Arminius, and see just how close to Calvin he was.

 

very good posting!

Hope that some here can get past just reading that "You as a cal just wrongly refefined term ALL"

 

More answering a question with a question. Why did God harden the hearts with they had no ability to receive the gospel? Instead, yet another invite to change the subject once again. Go figure.

 

Hello Richard, yes many Baptist think your view is biblical. So by the numbers

1) Christ died for all mankind rather than just for the supposedly preselected elect. Why would God have Christ die for people He has previously decided to not choose for salvation?

2) Does everyone reject the offer of salvation? What about the three soils of Matthew 13:1-30? What about the men of Matthew 23:13 who were entering heaven.

3) The appeal to the effectual call is an argument from silence, no scripture teaches anything other than the call through the power of the gospel.

4) If Ephesians 1:4 refers to our individual election for salvation before time, why does 2 Thessalonians 2:13 say God chooses us for salvation through the sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. How could we have faith in the truth before we were alive, for faith comes from hearing...?

I ask these questions to point out that there is a far more simply view of salvation, the one found in John 3:13, whoever believes in Him as determined by God, shall not perish but have eternal life. Thus we are saved by grace through faith.

 

Just as he hardened pharoahs heart!

So that their rejection was made full and complete, so that scriptures might be fulfilled!

And he just completed what they had already started!

 

2 Thessalonians is not saying we were predestined because we would one day have faith in the truth. It is simply saying that faith will be the method used (after we are given it by God of course).. We were still chosen before time to be saved by a method of faith, but that is not why we were chosen before time. God gives us the ability to have faith in order to be saved. Remember: 2 Thessalonians 1:9 same book; ~"who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time"

 

2 choices on election!

Either I chose God, or He chose me!

Either the Will of God, or the will of man!

 

yup! And the only way to be consistant with the fact that God is absolutely in control of everything is a Calvinistic aproach. God chose me, by his will.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses us for salvation through faith in the Truth. So it is referring to the method of individual election, not the method of salvation.

2 Timothy 1:9 says God "who has saved us [Paul and his audience] and called us with a holy calling [the ministry of Christ] not according to our works [God did not save us because we earned it] but according to His own purpose and grace, which was granted us in Christ Jesus [referring to anyone who has been put in Christ by the sanctifying work of the Spirit] which was granted to us [those redeemed] from all eternity [ when God chose His Redeemer and therefore chose corporately everyone redeemed by His redeemer, hence He chose us in Him [corporately not individually] before the foundation of the world.

So by the numbers, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is not telling us the method of salvation, but the method of election. See 1 Peter 1:2 which says the same thing, we were individually chosen by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

Please answer the questions I asked.

 

I'm still don't see how 2 Thessalonians 2:13 contradicts the teachings of Calvinism.

"because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth"


God chose us from before time, to be saved by a process that would include the sanctifying action from the Holy Spirit, and belief in the truth.

Calvinist believe that you still hear the truth, and the Holy Spirit opens your eyes and heart to allow it in, and become saved through belief.

Thus the answer to;

is that you can't! Because hearing to the gospel is the method that God uses to bring us to faith, but only if you are chosen by God as his elect to hear in the first place!

logic; 2 Timothy 1:9 ~"He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time"

God predestines not because of any act of ours
All Belief is an act of ours
Therefore; God does not predestine because of belief.

 

Welcome to B B brother...you have responded well:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Originally Posted by Yeshua1
2 choices on election!

False dichotomy

False dichotomy

No, not really.

Yes, he did....but what does the quantifier "by his will" mean? all choices....are a function of "will". How else would he "choose"?

 

what is the very basis of salvation? Does it originate and start with God, in that He freely chose us in the beloved, or did he allocate to us the means to make that decision by our own free will?

 

By the numbers,

(1) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not say when we were chosen. It says from the beginning so during the creation week or after the creation week. It precludes being chosen before creation. So in order to preclude a conflict with Ephesians 1:4 , we were chosen corporately before creation and individually after creation.

(2) the method does not address the method of salvation but the method of election. See 1 Peter 1:2, where again we are chosen by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

Therefore 2 Thessalonians 2:13 precludes Calvinism's time of individual election, unconditional election, and teaches conditional election through faith in the truth.

Why did you not answer my questions? Why did God harden hearts if Total Spiritual Inability is valid? Please answer the question, anyone can evade the truth, but that is not how we grow more Christ like.

 

Paul answered that aready in Romans, as we are vessals of His mercy, while others are objects of his wrath!

 

So God needed to harden hearts because they were objects of his wrath? Why were they not already hard because of total spiritual inability. Just another non-answer to evade the truth that they have no answer.