1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured The Arminian Dilemma

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by The Biblicist, Dec 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 4 of 7
  1. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    Exactly. It's all pretense on his part and a feeble attempt to reverse roles. He's been found out long ago.
     
    #61 preacher4truth, Dec 19, 2013
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Again, back on track. No one yet has provided any valid or reasonable evidence that a single point of the OP is not true.

    Van, has been forced to embrace that Israel can be justified under the Old Covenant.

    Winman has been forced to admit that none "in the flesh" can please God which contradicts all his interpretations of other scriptures that such can please God.

    Skan has not been able to mount any sustainable argument. First he attempted to deny God DID do what the OP asserts plainly by Scripture He DID do and IS DOING right now. Then he attempted to argue form a Post-defacto salvation backward that God did not do what the Scriptures plainly state He did and is doing. Then he attempted to deny any kind of condemnation based upon post-defacto salvation. Then he agreed they have been condemned as sinners but not under wrath. Then he attempted to argue that only a select number were under wrath and not all mankind due to sin.

    Bottom line, God looks upon the heart to determine sin or righteousness and defines everything you think, say or do either as sin or righteous depending upon your heart motive rather than external confirmation. By this standard "there IS none righteous" but "God" including infants to the most aged.

    So the OP still stands totally and completely unscathed
     
    #62 The Biblicist, Dec 19, 2013
  3. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    What????? What Christian on earth doesn't believe this? Why do you think I'm an evangelist and missionary? OF course I believe that apart from the grace of God all men are on their way to certain condemnation in hell.

    You are still not understanding my perspective, apparently. This is why I've repeatedly asked you to repeat back to me what you think I believe.

    They remain 'under condemnation' (heading to hell) because they have not believed. But what about that suggests they can't believe and so be saved?

    I understand what you are attempting to argue. You are saying that because mankind is unable to fulfill the demands of the law and God holds them culpable for the law, then God is equally just to demand that mankind believe and repent when confronted with the appeal of the gospel even though they don't have the ability to fulfill that appeal either.

    And my rebuttal is that God doesn't hold us culpable for the law if we believe in the Son, who fulfilled the law for us, so your argument doesn't follow past that first point in our system, because in our system that provision is available to all. If God didn't send the Son to take the full wrath of God and fulfill the demands of the law then you point would be completely valid, but He did. He could have condemned everyone for breaking his law, but instead he offers mercy to all and only condemns those who reject the truth in their unbelief.

    Men aren't finally condemned (sent to hell) because they sinned. If that were the case we'd all go to hell. Men perish (which maybe a clearer word than 'condemned) because they refuse to accept the truth so as to be saved.
     
    #63 Skandelon, Dec 19, 2013
  4. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow, you really have difficulty hearing people who disagree with your perspective, don't you? My view is the majority view of most scholars in the SBC and has countless commentators and scholars who teach what I believe and yet you act as if what I teach and believe is new and unique to me....or so utterly confounding that no one could even understand it, when in reality what I believe is much simpler than Calvinism

    That or you have so engrained yourself in your system you can't see beyond it clearly enough to understand any other view (a form of hardening, no doubt). That combined with a insatiable desire to win a debate has made having a profitable discussion WITH you (as opposed to against you) virtually impossible.

    Try meeting me half way. Try restating what I've said to gain clarity, like I do with you. Ask clarifying questions. But don't make silly statements like this because it only reveals your lack of objectivity and willingness to put any effort in understanding what is being said.

    Plus, this 'post-defacto' stuff was YOUR words, not mine. I still have no idea what your talking about when you refer to a post-defacto salvation or 'escape' like you said the first time you used this phrase. I corrected you the first time and I'll say it again. The law was never given as a means of escape or salvation. There has always been only one way and there will only ever be one way to escape hell, and that is by grace through faith, which is attainable!
     
    #64 Skandelon, Dec 19, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2013
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    It is at this precise point your defense breaks down with the "if." Why? Because the very nature of FALLEN MAN has already been proven under law to be totally incapable of subjection to the law of God. Hence, NO CHANGE OF NATURAL INABILITY has occurred up to this "if." However, it is that facet of fallen human nature that makes your "if" impossible as the fallen nature has no more ability to be subect to the Law of God before salvation any more than after salvation. Hence, salvation must have reference to creation of somthing radically different that what is found in fallen human nature - a new creation, a new heart which by the very nature of being a "creative" act removes it from the possibility of dependence upon ability found in the fallen nature of man.
     
    #65 The Biblicist, Dec 19, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2013
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    It is irrational to argue from Post-defacto divine intervention that fallen human nature has ability to submit to the law of God when in fact the Scripture has already proven it does not. However, this is exactly the logic being used by the Arminians on this forum.
     
    #66 The Biblicist, Dec 19, 2013
  7. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, you believe the nature of the light (revelation) is equal in both cases too? The light of law is equal in purpose/intent as the light of the gospel? The message of law carries the same enabling power as the message of grace...or lack there of?

    God's appeal to be reconciled, which is believed (at least by us) to be sent for the PURPOSE of enabling a response of repentance and faith, is clearly distinct from the purpose of the law. And yet because the law is met with inability, you ASSUME that the message of grace is too. You do this on the basis that man's nature has changed, but that view misses two important points, one involves the progressive change of MAN'S NATURE and thus abilities, and the second relates to REVELATIONS NATURE and PURPOSE:

    1. Man's nature doesn't start calloused, it progressively becomes calloused after years of rebellion, 'otherwise one might see, hear, understand and repent.' <---scripture, not my opinion

    2. The nature and purpose of the REVELATION is different in each case. The nature/purpose of law was NEVER meant to enable, it was meant to reveal inability and need. The nature/purpose of the Gospel is meant to make an appeal to all creatures to come and be reconciled through Christ, who atoned for the breaking of law.

    So, Walter, it's not just the nature of what's being acted upon (man's depraved nature), but the nature/purpose of what is doing the acting. Its about the nature of the clay, but more importantly its about the nature/power/purpose of the LIGHT! Understand?
     
    #67 Skandelon, Dec 19, 2013
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Not even remotely true.

    The Calvinist "unreasonable unjust God" scenario simply does not find support in scripture.

    Romans 8:6-8 points out how mankind is able to keep the Law of God - by accepting Christ, being born-again and walking by the power of the Holy Spirit.

    Thus as Paul says of the wicked in Romans 1 "they are without excuse".

    God says He "draws ALL men unto Him" John 12:32.

    The reasonable and just requirements of God - are applicable and the lost are then "without excuse".

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #68 BobRyan, Dec 19, 2013
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    "God so loved the WORLD that HE gave.." Calvinism says "well...not really the WORLD".

    by contrast to Calvinism's unreasonable God doctrine we have God's "lament".


    God's "Appeal" and Lament

    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Ezek 18[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]30“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]31“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]32“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and LIVE!" [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]2Cor 5: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]2 Peter 3[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
    9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]“He CAME to HIS OWN and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]His OWN received Him not[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” John 1[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]    [FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
    What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Response: [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Well the Calvinist would have an answer for God on that one. An answer contrived via “extreme inference” in places like Deut 5:29. Calvinism would inform the world – and God Himself of just what God did to cause the lamentable result that God is complaining about. If the result is wrong then Calvinism argues He did wrong - sabotaging His own plans or at the very least - being forgetful to "do the necessary" as the saying goes in India.[/FONT]
     
    #69 BobRyan, Dec 19, 2013
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Amazing how you twist my words to say what you want me to say rather than what I said. I said spiritual light is by revelation from God and is absolute regardless if it is the Law of God or the gospel of Christ. Whereas moral light of conscience is RELATIVE and mutable from one person to another and from one culture to another. I NEVER said that law has the same purpose as the gospel, but nice try!
     
    #70 The Biblicist, Dec 19, 2013
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Questions, questions, questions. AGain, questions serve to either reveal something about your system you'd rather not admit to OR to allow you the opportunity to explain your view more clearly. This is what 'vetting' and debate is all about. I twisted nothing, I simply asked questions based on the implications of what I understand about your view. All you need to do is answer or appeal to mystery.

    So, do you believe that revelation from God, regardless of its purpose, carries with it the same enabling power, or lack thereof?

    Ok, now we are getting somewhere...I think. You acknowledge the revelation of law carries a different purpose than the revelation of gospel.

    Can you agree with me that the purpose of the law is too reveal our inability to attain righteousness by law through works?

    Can you also agree with me that purpose of the gospel is too call all people to attain righteousness by grace through faith?

    Can you also agree with me that what God purposes he will accomplish? That His word doesn't return void, but accomplishes the purposes for which it was sent?

    So, can we agree that acknowledging the purpose of the REVELATION could be a significant point in regard to what it may be able to accomplish?
     
    #71 Skandelon, Dec 19, 2013
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    I don't ever recall claiming that enablement is found in any kind of light. I believe I have claimed that enablement was found only in God. I beleive what I have claimed from the very beginning that the gosple is the power of God to salvation not that the "power of men" but "of God." It is empowered by God's word of command - 2 Cor. 4:6

    Have I ever said anything at anytime to the contrary?


    It reveals our inablity to be righteous regardless of what is in view. Neither the law or the gospel can enable the fallen nature to attain righteousness because the fallen nature is no more righteous after salvation than it was before (Rom. 7:14-25; Rom. 8:7). Salvation refers to something CREATED in addition to our fallen nature - the new creation.



    Call yes, enable no, as the gospel has no power in and of itself to enable immutable sinful nature to be holy.

    If you mean by "His word" or what comes directly from His Person, yes. But if you mean "His word" the scriptures - no, because the scriptures are resisted and thwarted by men every day. In salvation it is God Himself that speaks through the gospel as His creative word of command which never comes back to Him void.


    If you mean "revelation" as in written, then no, we cannot agree. If you mean "revelation" as in direct from God within the heart that removes the darkness effectually, then yes.
     
    #72 The Biblicist, Dec 19, 2013
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    No need to make that argument when opposing Calvinism's "unreasonable God" argument.


    The Calvinist "unreasonable unjust God" scenario simply does not find support in scripture.

    Romans 8:6-8 points out how mankind is able to keep the Law of God - by accepting Christ, being born-again and walking by the power of the Holy Spirit.

    Thus as Paul says of the wicked in Romans 1 "they are without excuse".

    God says He "draws ALL men unto Him" John 12:32.

    The reasonable and just requirements of God - are applicable and the lost are then "without excuse".

    God's "Lament" and "Appeal" as seen in the following is based on the "REASONABLE GOD" argument of actual scripture.

    ==========================


    "God so loved the WORLD that HE gave.." Calvinism says "well...not really the WORLD".

    by contrast to Calvinism's unreasonable God doctrine we have God's "lament".


    God's "Appeal" and Lament

    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Ezek 18[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]30“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]31“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]32“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and LIVE!" [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]2Cor 5: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]2 Peter 3[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
    9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]“He CAME to HIS OWN and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]His OWN received Him not[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” John 1[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]    [FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
    What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

    God is not making the "unreasonable God" argument here - that Calvinism so desperately "needs".

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    God says he "overlooks the sins" commited in ignorance. "To him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". God takes the burden upon himself to cover the sins of those who are ignorant through no fault of their own (not ignorant due to blind determination not to be informed on a given doctrine in scripture).

    So the "unreasonable God" story does not work there - Christ is the "Atoning sacrifice for OUR sin and not for our SINS only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2.

    Their sins are covered and they are 'withtout excuse' precisely because of that "Drawing of ALL mankind to Me" John 12:32.

    Without the "unreasonable God" argument there is no Calvinist paradigm for God being the saboteur of His own Gospel appeal and the cause of His own lament.

    in Christ,



    Bob[/FONT]
     
    #73 BobRyan, Dec 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2013
  14. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    You guys seem to have a mental block! You cannot argue from a post-defacto potential of salvation to deny something that is already a completed action. God has already demanded fallen man keeps the law and man in his fallen state is incapable of keeping the law and the verdict has already come in - condemned as sinners unable to keep the law - that is the fallen state. No future potential redemption can deny what has already occurred. Indeed, salvation is admission that it has occurred already or there would be no need for salvation BY GOD.
     
    #74 The Biblicist, Dec 20, 2013
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Biblicist, can you define what you mean by "post-defacto" way of escape?

    According to most scholars, both Cal and Arm types, there has always been only one way of salvation, which is by grace through faith.

    Please explain what you mean.
     
    #75 Skandelon, Dec 20, 2013
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    What I mean is that total inability by the fallen nature to be subject to the law of God has already been established by sin and is still unchanged by salvation. Later Salvation cannot deny that as an establsihed fact. Indeed, later salvation is the admission it has been established. Although later salvation can LEGALLY give you a position of SINLESSNESS it cannot and does not deny your had been proven to have been sinful and that even now you are sinful and the fallen nature is still incapable of submitting to the law/commands of God. Hence, salvation does not alter the fallen nature one little bit but rather provides a NEW CREATION in connection with the indwelling Holy Spirit to OVERPOWER it but not change it.
     
    #76 The Biblicist, Dec 20, 2013
  17. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    The fact they are sinners in need of a savior and hell bound is a given fact, yes. Its a given fact that God is perfectly just to condemn all men for breaking the law, yes.

    BUT, here is the million dollar question.

    DOES GOD CHOOSE TO FINALLY CONDEMN ALL MEN TO ETERNAL HELL AND SEPARATION FOR BREAKING HIS LAW, OR DOES HE CHOOSE TO SHOW ALL MEN MERCY INSTEAD?

    Calvinists believe that God binds all men over to disobedience in order to show mercy to a preselect few. We agree with Paul who taught that God bound all men over to disobedience in order to show mercy to ALL MEN. See Rom 11:32

    Titus 2:11:
    For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men

    And NO, that is not universalism. It's provisional atonement, just like all of God's gracious provisions throughout the OT.

    He lifted the snake on the pole...provisional atonement (provided to those who 'looked to it in faith for healing')...the Passover...provision atonement (provide to those with blood covering the door) etc, etc
     
    #77 Skandelon, Dec 20, 2013
  18. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Your question is not consistent with itself as it is an unequal comparison. If it were an equal comparison you would have to say:

    "Does God choose to finally condemn all men to eternal hell and separation for breaking his law, or does he choose to show all men eternal mercy instead of eternal hell"

    However, you carefully avoided that because it would teach universal salvation. So you made an unequal contrast.

    Second, the fact is that not all men are shown mercy because many NEVER hear of the gospel and die in their sins, judgement justified by disobeying the light they do have. Many others that do hear reject it and your position has no logical or Biblical explanation why any fallen man would receive it since the very same fallen nature response by those who reject the light is the very same fallen nature found in those who do receive mercy willingly.

    You have no answer for how the proven inability to be subject to the law/commands of God, (which must be inherent to their fallen nature, rather than external) can be something different to another command of God (repent and beleive). You have no answer to why the same fallen nature contineus unchanged within the redeemed man and works by "the law of sin."
     
    #78 The Biblicist, Dec 20, 2013
  19. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not if you believe in provisional atonement, as explained above. Showing one mercy does not equal certain salvation in a system that doesn't presume irresistible grace.

    As discussed before, even those without that revelation are without excuse according to Paul. Don't give them their excuse back by suggesting that the revelation they received isn't sufficient to acknowledge God as God or to accept the level of truth revealed so as to gain more.

    Actually their judgement is justified just by being born under Adam. Their response to the light is a matter of whether they will perish or not. If they choose to trade the truth in for lies they will perish.

    That is what "human responsibility" is all about. You either accept it or you don't.

    PURPOSE.

    The purpose of the law is different from the purpose of the gospel. The law was never able to be fulfilled by man and was never sent for the purpose of attaining righteousness. The gospel WAS sent for the purpose of attaining righteousness and there is no reason set forth in scripture to suggest this divine truth and invitation of God cannot be responded to by responsible creatures, especially given the fact that Jesus says these are the words that will finally judge them on the last day (Jn 12).
     
    #79 Skandelon, Dec 20, 2013
  20. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    The strength of one's argument is not typically reflected in the part addressed, but the part ignored...

    I'd like you to address the comments above, please.
     
    #80 Skandelon, Dec 20, 2013
Page 4 of 7
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...