Featured Defining Terms (please read the first post)

The main problem in all of this is not freely discussing wehat we believe and why from the scriptures, but in dealing with disagreements ina non Christ like fashion...

 

Yep. My Pastor will refer to himself as an Augustinian.

I saw that. I LOL'd. :laugh:

 

There are at least 31 Greek words that translate into "come" and that is not including those verbs that are used in conjunction with another verb.
Erchomai is the most common word translated "come." It is translated "come" 616 times. In comparison it is translated "go" 13 times. And then 13 more times it has a variety of other meanings such as: enter, resort, appear, pass by, etc.

 

Debate gets abused on this board. I no longer engage in it. I will discuss things with others so long as mischaracterizations and misrepresenations are not brought into it ie

"LS means you have to get clean before you get saved"

 

Rev, I respect that. There are a number of posters I can no longer interact with because, instead of discussing substance, the discussion degenerates into ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations. It's sad, really, but predictable.

 

Amen! :thumbs:

 

Predictable in what way? From individuals you know out of both camps, or from one camp in particular?

 

There is a disagreement that goes back much further than "come"

First, both camps agree on one simple premise, but they both usually deny this as being the initial premise. Both camps have a fundamental agreement that only those who do good go to heaven.

Second, after starting with that fundamental agreement, they each see a biblical premise. On one hand, the Arminian sees man's responsibility. On the other hand, the Calvinist sees God's sovereignty.

Third, from this single premise, the rest of the position is put together with philosophy, only adopting as much scripture as deemed necessary to bolster their position. The rest of scripture is then made to conform to their theological construct.


For a practical outworking, look:

To at Arminians. Man must be good in order to go to heaven. So, if he has a responsibility, then we must look primarily to him. He is responsible to come, and to exercise his own will to believe, commit himself to Christ, and to endure to the end. Predestination is twisted to mean that God looks down the hallway of time, to see what man would do, then choose him based on what man is going to do.

To the Calvinist, man must be good to go to heaven. So if God is sovereign, and "salvation" is purely the work of God, then we must look primarily to Him. He is responsible for drawing man, changing the will of man so that he now desires to believe, and commit himself to Christ. Predestination is twisted to mean that God chose some to "come" to Christ, but only because his will has been changed. Now if God has started this work in a man, it must be inevitable that this man will endure to the end. Otherwise, it could justly be said that God has not begun this work in a man.


Both camps agree that works play an essential role in who goes to heaven, and both camps agree that believing and committing are an act of the will. But one views both of those from the responsibility of man, while the other views them both from the sovereignty of God.

 

Tis why most Christians reject both camps and recognize both freewill and election are taught side by side in the scriptures and must be viewed in the light of each other's truth.

 

Post # 49 is a good example of a misrepresentation.

 

You probably only feel that way because your feelings got hurt.

I've posted numerous times the FACT that if you concoct any scenario of a man's faith and works, that both camps will agree with his eternal fate. Bar None. Zero exceptions.

Have you ever rebutted it? NOPE

Has anyone ever rebutted it? NOPE

Can it be rebutted? NOPE


Now, if both camps agree on the fate of each and every individual ever born, there must be an underlying issue of why they disagree so vehemently. It boils down to a philosophical construct.


Like I have also said before, Calvinism is nothing but Arminianism in disguise.


If you were to invest as much effort into theology as you do in politics, you might actually get it. You are utterly carnal. That's why you can post a 1,000 word reply about Obama, the Supreme court, and even Southern Baptist politics...But theology? 9 words.


Good job. I'll bet somebody thinks this world of you

 

I explained it in post #49

One says man "comes" as an act of his free will, the other says he comes because God changed his will first.

Both agree it is an act of the will. This issue is 100% dependent on the underlying philosophical structure. Trying to iron out details without ironing out the primary building block is utterly fruitless.

It's as if two men are arguing over the phone about how to attach a mailbox to a post. Each has a particular post in mind. One post is wood, and the other is steel. They keep arguing about the details of how that mailbox gets attached, and never bother ironing out what kind of post it is. The details are 100% dependent on the underlying issue of the post structure.

And so it is with all the details of every contentious word you've compiled in your list.

If you don't get to the underlying philosophical structure, you may as well argue about a mailbox

 

To be able to come to Christ, that entails a broader discussion though of just what type of "free will" remains to us lost in Adam!

 

Is the idea, in John 6:37, that no one "comes" meaning changing location from spiritually outside of Christ to being put into Christ, or is the idea of changing one's mental viewpoint from not trusting in Christ to trusting in Christ. Calvinism claims the idea is mental change of mind, whereas others (well at least me) say the idea is a change of location, because at the end of the verse the person is "in Christ" because you have to be in in order to be cast out.

Is positional sanctification in view, being set apart spiritually in Christ; or is a change in mental viewpoint from not trusting to trusting in Christ in view?

Note the word "heko" has the meaning of arriving, so from my side of the street "all that the Father gives Me shall arrive into Me, and those that travel into Me I shall in no wise cast out.

 

I can just imagine Jesus sitting on the throne of God and shaking His head saying 'I thought my speech was plain and simple, whosoever will may come'.

 

Hi Steaver, I must be having a senior moment, to which verse are you referring?

 

The context, before and after define "come" simply to mean faith embracing Christ as Savior, thus coming from unbelief to belief in Christ.

Jesus uses it this way when he bids sinners to "come unto me" all ye that are heaven laden and burden and I will give you rest (rest from the burden of sin).

The preceding text (Jn. 6:35-36) is about coming to Christ by faith, John 6:40 is about coming to Christ by faith. The whole context from John 6:29-69 is about coming to Christ by faith.