Counsel Wanted for My Theological Conclusions

[Steven Yeadon]

I'm back and my power is now on. I still have lots of cleaning up to do after the hurricane though. As for my previous thread, I do believe now that OSAS does not work with even limited choice. Thus, this is where I currently stand with my own beliefs due to my research of the bible and the need to be logically consistent. Of course, these beliefs still need to go through the crucible and to be honest I am not fully convinced by them:

• Although man is fallen, he is not entirely incapacitated by the sinful nature and can choose to put faith in Jesus Christ. However, his sinful nature before being given a new heart and new spirit greatly incapacitates his ability to do and understand the good.
• God makes a plea to all men that they repent, put faith in Jesus, and be saved.
• Jesus bore the sin of all mankind, but not everyone will want Jesus as their king. As a result, many will be rejected who Jesus died for.
• The grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
• A person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

This almost makes me a straight Arminian, but I do not believe in something as hokey as God looked ahead to see who would love Him. I try to avoid defining how the Lord's foreknowledge works, as His ways are unimaginably higher than mine.

Please counsel me on these views so that I may be sharpened.

I did get one challenge from TCassidy to these views in my last thread and I decided to include that challenge and my response in this thread.

TCassidy Said:

You can't have it both ways. If you admit even a tiny work then your grace is made null and void.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.​

Steven Yeadon Replied:

That is a clever retort using two verses I did not know about.

That said, I have done some research and thought for a little on your argument.

1. Here I will reference (Romans 4:1-8). These verses show that Paul does not regard faith as a work, but in fact he contrasts faith with works throughout this passage. A passage in the same letter as the two verses you use. He answers an important question I have about Abraham that I formulated after wrestling with the verses you used. That question is: did Abraham's faith earn him standing before God? The answer is clearly no in (Romans 4:2-3), even though he believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness.

2. The broader context of (Romans 11:1-12) speaks to the Israelites being hardened so that grace could come to the gentiles, but in verses 11-12 we are told that this is not necessarily meant to be a permanent stumbling as how great would it be to fully include an envious Israel with the gentiles.

The shocking thing is I believe I know from my research why the original Arminians concluded that this was a biblical position, as they formulated their five points before Calvin did, who responded to their perceived heresy. This is one of only two comprehensive view points on these issues that seem to work at biblical exegesis. The other viewpoint being Calvinism.​

 

[TCassidy]

Steven, I really don't know why you ask for counsel. When I give it to you, straight out of the bible, your response is "clever retort." So why should I, or anyone else, bother?

 

[Rippon]

The shocking thing is I believe I know from my research why the original Arminians concluded that this was a biblical position, as they formulated their five points before Calvin did, who responded to their perceived heresy.​

Your research is flawed. John Calvin died in 1564. Arminius died in 1609. The followers of the latter drew up The Five Articles of Remonstrance.

 

[TCassidy]

The Five Articles of Remonstrance were published in 1610.

The Canons of the Synod of Dordt were published in 1619.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

The Five Articles of Remonstrance were published in 1610.

The Canons of the Synod of Dordt were published in 1619.

Wow, my church history class notes fail again.

I am very sorry about the confusion.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:1-3).

“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition [Judas]; that the scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12).

I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever; nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past (Ecclesiastes 3:14-15).

These verses from the last thread really challenge me and I wanted to note them so I can come back later.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Steven, I really don't know why you ask for counsel. When I give it to you, straight out of the bible, your response is "clever retort." So why should I, or anyone else, bother?

TCassidy, I am very sorry if you think my reply was flippant. It was not meant to be. In my mind as someone doing bible study, I believe the two points I raised using the bible successfully diffused your two verses. I honestly believe that Arminianism is the more biblical stance based on my bible study, when I began thinking I would be a converted Calvinist through such a study.

You state I am being unfaithful to the Word in my viewpoint, but as far as I can tell Arminians and Calvinists have plenty of verses and intelligent interpretations on each other's side. It feels like you are almost plainly saying that Arminianism is an utterly unbiblical stance to you? If that is true, then do you tolerate Arminianism as an honest mistake in your view?

 

[Bro. James]

Totality of depravity must be throughly understood before The Grace of God makes sense. While it is true man has a free will, such will is enslaved to man's depravity. He knows not how to make the correct choice without the intervention of his Creator. All man can do in his flesh is sin. When he is converted, he has a choice--he still has a problem with his flesh, especially when he tries to worship God in the flesh. God cannot deal with our flesh--it is sinful. "God is Spirit, they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[TCassidy]

If that is true, then do you tolerate Arminianism as an honest mistake in your view?

We are not discussing Arminianism. We are discussing Eternal Security of the Believer.

Even Jacobus Arminius admitted he was reluctant to deny Eternal Security and that he would continue to study the matter.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Moderators posting this thread was a mistake, and I have arrived at my conclusion to this matter and begun a new thread over in Baptist Theology and Bible Study.

I post my version of TULIP and hopefully this thread can be locked:

• Man's will is sinful and he cannot do good deeds that are considered anything more than filthy rags to the Lord.
• God makes a plea to the world through His convicting Spirit that they repent, put faith in Jesus, and be saved. This supernatural conviction allows people to choose to put faith in Jesus the Christ.
• Jesus bore the sin of all mankind, but not everyone will want Jesus as their king. As a result, many will be rejected who Jesus died for.
• The grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
• "Born again, Spirit-indwelled" believers are eternally secure because the Spirit of God lives inside them, perfecting them. However, the common presentation that our salvation is a guarantee that should give us tons of peace is false. The bible tells us over and over again that our salvation is a gift to be confirmed by living out life in fear and trembling over what it would mean to prove false.

 

[Bro. James]

There is no Faith to put unless God gives it by His Grace. Our depravity will not show us the right choice. See Eph. 2:8-10.

We are saved by Grace, Grace, Grace.

Kept by Grace, Grace, Grace. We deserve Hell.

Jesus said only one was lost. Who? Judas. Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Steven Yeadon]

There is no Faith to put unless God gives it by His Grace. Our depravity will not show us the right choice. See Eph. 2:8-10.

We are saved by Grace, Grace, Grace.

Kept by Grace, Grace, Grace. We deserve Hell.

Jesus said only one was lost. Who? Judas. Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

I absolutely believe we all deserve hell for our sins. However, the Lord in His righteousness and justice has provided Jesus, His Son, to us to be a sacrifice that takes away our sins. It is how we respond to the Spirit's conviction over sin, righteousness, and Judgement that is instrumental in where we wind up after death.

Also, after thinking on it, I do believe that my turn to being an Arminian rests on the following statement:

• The grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.

You also mention Judas, who has an Old Testament parallel in Pharaoh. These two people make me wonder if I am wrong, but to me the preponderance of the verses of the bible point to Arminian theology and not Calvinism. Thus, it seems these people still had some level of choice over their eternity that they exercised poorly.

 

[Bro. James]

Study carefully the first four chapters of the Book of Ephesians.

Bro. James

 

[BobRyan]

I'm back and my power is now on. I still have lots of cleaning up to do after the hurricane though

Do you live in Fla?

Good to have you back.

 

[BobRyan]

. As for my previous thread, I do believe now that OSAS does not work with even limited choice. Thus, this is where I currently stand with my own beliefs due to my research of the bible and the need to be logically consistent. Of course, these beliefs still need to go through the crucible and to be honest I am not fully convinced by them:

• Although man is fallen, he is not entirely incapacitated by the sinful nature and can choose to put faith in Jesus Christ. However, his sinful nature before being given a new heart and new spirit greatly incapacitates his ability to do and understand the good.
• God makes a plea to all men that they repent, put faith in Jesus, and be saved.
• Jesus bore the sin of all mankind, but not everyone will want Jesus as their king. As a result, many will be rejected who Jesus died for.
• The grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
• A person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

This almost makes me a straight Arminian, but I do not believe in something as hokey as God looked ahead to see who would love Him. I try to avoid defining how the Lord's foreknowledge works, as His ways are unimaginably higher than mine.

God promoted "free will" to this clear and obvious extent.

IF God were the least bit interested in sovereignly "tweeking" the system so that things come out "His way" then a little subtle tweek of Luciver's thought cycle -- putting the marble right back on the right track ... so incredibly early that even Lucifer himself would not have noticed the "correction" would have saved God - the loss of Lucifer, the loss of 1/3 of the sinless angels, the loss of planet earth... the need to be tortured and die for the sins of all mankind - as our atoning sacrifice... thousands of years of torment suffering and shame on planet earth... etc.

As for man being "slightly" able to choose without any influence from God - that would be hard to measure (like a fish measuring what it is like to be dry) -- but in Romans 3 we get a clue - where Paul says "there is no one that seeks after God - no not one).

This means that the "drawing of God" enables all the choice that depravity disables -- when it comes to free will to make the choice to accept the Gospel.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Do you live in Fla?

Good to have you back.

Yeah, I'm in Orlando.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

God promoted "free will" to this clear and obvious extent.

IF God were the least bit interested in sovereignly "tweeking" the system so that things come out "His way" then a little subtle tweek of Luciver's thought cycle -- putting the marble right back on the right track ... so incredibly early that even Lucifer himself would not have noticed the "correction" would have saved God - the loss of Lucifer, the loss of 1/3 of the sinless angels, the loss of planet earth... the need to be tortured and die for the sins of all mankind - as our atoning sacrifice... thousands of years of torment suffering and shame on planet earth... etc.

As for man being "slightly" able to choose without any influence from God - that would be hard to measure (like a fish measuring what it is like to be dry) -- but in Romans 3 we get a clue - where Paul says "there is no one that seeks after God - no not one).

This means that the "drawing of God" enables all the choice that depravity disables -- when it comes to free will to make the choice to accept the Gospel.

I'm just going with the preponderance of scripture.

Why do we even have the OSAS verses and the anti-OSAS verses? Both must be reconciled fully without mental gymnastics that seem out of place.

To me, my current understanding is that it was the fear of proving false, and thus going to hell, that the anti-OSAS verses are addressing. It seems to me that in the New Testament you had to endure testing, which would prove yourself in the faith, and thus let everyone see clearly if you were written in the Lamb's Book of Life by your deeds. But, all along it was a given whether you would endure or not, because the new Spirit and new heart you were given testified to whether you had heartfelt faith or not.

This interpretation figures out so many OSAS and anti-OSAS verses to me its just wild. So I go with it for now until I find a better interpretation.

 

[Yeshua1]

God promoted "free will" to this clear and obvious extent.

IF God were the least bit interested in sovereignly "tweeking" the system so that things come out "His way" then a little subtle tweek of Luciver's thought cycle -- putting the marble right back on the right track ... so incredibly early that even Lucifer himself would not have noticed the "correction" would have saved God - the loss of Lucifer, the loss of 1/3 of the sinless angels, the loss of planet earth... the need to be tortured and die for the sins of all mankind - as our atoning sacrifice... thousands of years of torment suffering and shame on planet earth... etc.

As for man being "slightly" able to choose without any influence from God - that would be hard to measure (like a fish measuring what it is like to be dry) -- but in Romans 3 we get a clue - where Paul says "there is no one that seeks after God - no not one).

This means that the "drawing of God" enables all the choice that depravity disables -- when it comes to free will to make the choice to accept the Gospel.

The basis of salvation is the sovereign will of God though, and not that of sinners, as we have no real free will left to decide with!

 

[utilyan]

I absolutely believe we all deserve hell for our sins. However, the Lord in His righteousness and justice has provided Jesus, His Son, to us to be a sacrifice that takes away our sins. It is how we respond to the Spirit's conviction over sin, righteousness, and Judgement that is instrumental in where we wind up after death.

Also, after thinking on it, I do believe that my turn to being an Arminian rests on the following statement:

• The grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.

You also mention Judas, who has an Old Testament parallel in Pharaoh. These two people make me wonder if I am wrong, but to me the preponderance of the verses of the bible point to Arminian theology and not Calvinism. Thus, it seems these people still had some level of choice over their eternity that they exercised poorly.

Even is scripture plainly stated that anyone who scratches their nose goes to hell and certainly do, that doesn't equate to the judgement that you "deserve" hell. That word "deserve" is a judgement call. God has to flat out say it, to be true, and he never says it.


"The grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ."

God can stop you from sinning at the blink of an eye. He doesn't do that because he LOVES YOU not a robot.

God could also guarantee conditions for you to fail for the sake of others. A selfish person might think "what the heck". A good heart would go through with it to help their brothers and sisters


14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

^that couldn't fly in certain theological systems, They would all marry reprobates as to save souls if they were completely pious about it.

Romans 11

30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

The reason you got mercy, is because someone else failed^. And the hope is that the mercy shown to you is going to flow out to a mercy shown to those who first failed. And the way God looks at it is everyone gets mercy.


Don't take this path of using religion and the bible as an instructional defense against God, or looking for savlation first, Shouldn't weigh God's command if its going to pay out salvation or not. Should do what God commands for free. You shouldn't look for ways to defend yourself from God, You should look for God to look for ways to defend your from yourself.

God is the nicest, The GOODEST. Your best friend. God wants your happiness more you want it.


If there is one seat and ticket to heaven between me and you, I'm going to let you have that seat. The saints are not looking after their own tail, They have picked up not only on God's love but the love of the Father for all mankind.

No one who's own son gets tortured is going to complain about getting a flat tire five minutes later. And yet plenty here claim Jesus more precious to them and constant complain about lesser things.

If Jesus means everything to you, the worst that can happen to you has already been done to you, And the greatest relief to you is he is HAPPY! and at the right side of the father.

What do you want!?

Maybe you want in that joy but don't quite have it yet?


The selfish minded always tell me "i don't know why you keep trying to do what God asked you to do, it doesn't pay you anything, you are not going to earn salvation."

I love God because I love God, at some point the rule and law just becomes a insult and a joke, I rather get the penalty for not loving God and still love God.

If there was rule or law that says don't love Steven, God will break that rule.

I think God loves a fall guy and a loose cannon. Love God and Love everyone on earth especially when you are guaranteed to be doomed.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm just going with the preponderance of scripture.

Why do we even have the OSAS verses and the anti-OSAS verses? Both must be reconciled fully without mental gymnastics that seem out of place.

To me, my current understanding is that it was the fear of proving false, and thus going to hell, that the anti-OSAS verses are addressing. It seems to me that in the New Testament you had to endure testing, which would prove yourself in the faith, and thus let everyone see clearly if you were written in the Lamb's Book of Life by your deeds. But, all along it was a given whether you would endure or not, because the new Spirit and new heart you were given testified to whether you had heartfelt faith or not.

This interpretation figures out so many OSAS and anti-OSAS verses to me its just wild. So I go with it for now until I find a better interpretation.

In the example of the various kinds of seed and ground - the "seed springs to life" then is choked out. There is nothing there about "springs to life and so no possibility of dying" in that illustration.

So also in Matthew 18 in the "forgiveness revoked" example the statement is made "I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me..." and then the command given to return all the former debt. Nothing there about "I forgave you all that debt so no chance that it will be returned to you".

In Romans 11 you have the statement "you stand only by your faith" followed by "you should fear for if God did not spare them he may not spare you either" - in its appeal for "perseverance".

All of these - and many more like them appeal to the already forgiven, already saved, already born-again saint to "persevere" arguing that failure to do so would be to lose their state. For example they would become "severed from Christ, fallen from grace" as we see in Galatians 5.

The lost cannot "fall" -- they are already fallen.