False Religion of Arminianism 2

[atpollard]

Sinners.

Let’s test that theory:

• “but God shows his love for us SINNERS in that while we SINNERS were still sinners, Christ died for us SINNERS.”

• “but God shows his love for us SAINTS in that while we SAINTS were still sinners, Christ died for us SAINTS.”

“sinners” makes the verse claim that Paul and the Church at Rome are still unsaved (we, us).

“saints” makes the verse claim that Christ died for the SAVED while they were still SINNERS - suggesting “predestination” in some form.

 

[37818]

I don't see God's word telling us that His elect ( the vessels of mercy afore prepared unto glory ) were ever indistinguishable, to Him, from those that the Lord has specifically made as vessels of wrath ( Romans 9:22-24 ).
Again ( and if I haven't been clear ), back in Romans 5, I clearly see Paul telling the elect at Rome ( the foreknown and predestinated in Romans 8 ) that when they were yet sinners, Christ died for them.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that Paul is telling them that the Lord Jesus died for all men's sins.

I disagree.

To me the statements in Romans and several other places tell me who the "world" is in 1 John 2:2, for example. The "world" of God's elect out of every tongue, tribe and nation ( Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8, Romans 9:24 ).

That is how I understand those passages when I consider all that God's word tells me about how and why the Lord Jesus came to give Himself a ransom for many.
He was stricken for the sins of Isaiah's spiritual people ( Isaiah 53:8 )...
The elect.

Again, I can see that we disagree,
and from here on out I will try to refrain from replying to you on this subject in order to keep the peace between us.


Good afternoon to you.

God's chosen are not indistinguishable to God. They are to us.

That I personally consider the general election a fundamental of the faith, without apology.
The definitive evidence against only limited atonement.

I do not deny the truth of particular redumption either.

 

[37818]

“sinners” makes the verse claim that Paul and the Church at Rome are still unsaved (we, us).

1 John 1:10, ". . . If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. . . ."
1 Timothy 1:15, ". . . This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. . . ."

 

[atpollard]

atpollard
Thats exactly what Im talking about, it makes man a co savior !

Did you respond to God’s grace by REPENTING?
Does that make YOU a “co savior”?

If an Arminian responds to God’s grace by BELIEVING AND REPENTING, how does that make him more of a “co savior” than REPENTING makes you a “co savior”?

It is the “double standard” that I see as not honest discussion.
Personally, I find the Biblical case stronger for GOD MAKES PEOPLE believe and repent (change of heart) than GOD GRANTS some limited “ABILITY” to fallen men, but that does not make their case one of “men saving themselves” (the common Semi-Pelagian charge) and I am not fully convinced that “synergism” is an inevitable consequence of all Arminian leaning Theology.

There are some sharp non-Calvinists that present interesting points that tend to be shouted down with “talking points” rather than honestly addressed (even if they are wrong).

Calvinism cannot be 100% accurate or scripture would have been clearer and the debate would not have lasted this long. The REALITY of GOD’s SALVATION is just a little more complex than our present “best theories”. I think Calvinism is closer to the Truth (capital T), but ultimate Truth still eludes us. The joy is in accepting the challenge to try and understand. That requires listening to opposing ideas and weighing them on their true merits.

From the moment God CLAIMED me, I have sought TRUTH. So far that led me to Particular Baptist Theology (verse by verse, precept by precept, and truth by truth). However, I have shone a light into a lot of other paths along the way to identify what is NOT TRUTH and safely push it out of the way.

 

[atpollard]

1 John 1:10, ". . . If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. . . ."
1 Timothy 1:15, ". . . This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. . . ."

Clever mining of verses, but in Romans 5:8 that interpretation carries the ANT-BIBLICAL additional meaning that there was no change in their (our) state brought about by Christ. We were and are and shall remain equally sinners with no change in us.

[1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB]

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor [the] covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”​

 

[37818]

Clever mining of verses, but in Romans 5:8 that interpretation carries the ANT-BIBLICAL additional meaning that there was no change in their (our) state brought about by Christ. We were and are and shall remain equally sinners with no change in us.

I do not see it that way. I personally understand Romans 5:8 to refer to a general redemption. I always have. I believe the particular redemption too. Matthew 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen."

2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

 

[AustinC]

I do not see it that way. I personally understand Romans 5:8 to refer to a general redemption. I always have. I believe the particular redemption too. Matthew 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen."

2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

Where is "general" redemption ever found? It's certainly not in Romans 5:7-8.
For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

This is a very particular redemption. Nothing general about it. The "us" in this verse is those whom God has chosen to redeem.

Let's look further to verses 9-11
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Is there any "general" redemption here? No! It is very specific and particular.

 

[Brightfame52]

Did you respond to God’s grace by REPENTING?
Does that make YOU a “co savior”?

If an Arminian responds to God’s grace by BELIEVING AND REPENTING, how does that make him more of a “co savior” than REPENTING makes you a “co savior”?

It is the “double standard” that I see as not honest discussion.
Personally, I find the Biblical case stronger for GOD MAKES PEOPLE believe and repent (change of heart) than GOD GRANTS some limited “ABILITY” to fallen men, but that does not make their case one of “men saving themselves” (the common Semi-Pelagian charge) and I am not fully convinced that “synergism” is an inevitable consequence of all Arminian leaning Theology.

There are some sharp non-Calvinists that present interesting points that tend to be shouted down with “talking points” rather than honestly addressed (even if they are wrong).

Calvinism cannot be 100% accurate or scripture would have been clearer and the debate would not have lasted this long. The REALITY of GOD’s SALVATION is just a little more complex than our present “best theories”. I think Calvinism is closer to the Truth (capital T), but ultimate Truth still eludes us. The joy is in accepting the challenge to try and understand. That requires listening to opposing ideas and weighing them on their true merits.

From the moment God CLAIMED me, I have sought TRUTH. So far that led me to Particular Baptist Theology (verse by verse, precept by precept, and truth by truth). However, I have shone a light into a lot of other paths along the way to identify what is NOT TRUTH and safely push it out of the way.

You condition salvation on man, on what he does. Thats works salvation, read post #1

 

[atpollard]

You condition salvation on man, on what he does. Thats works salvation, read post #1

Were you saved without repenting?
Are you REALLY claiming that repentance is “unnecessary”?

(If not, then you should not need to avoid my simple question about your “repentance” being your WORK as a co-savior just as “belief” is the Arminian’s WORK as a co-savior.)


I refuse to latch onto ONE VERSE and use it to deny the rest of the Word of God! I believe that you are making false accusations and am asking you to prove them. Prove “belief” is a WORK and “repentance” is not.

 

[atpollard]

I do not see it that way. I personally understand Romans 5:8 to refer to a general redemption. I always have. I believe the particular redemption too. Matthew 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen."

I know you believe in both a General and Particular Redemption. I respect that position (even if I find it unnecessarily complex). However in the case of Romans 5:8 … I simply disagree with your exegesis.

The good news for all of Christendom is that “I AM NOT POPE”. My opinions carry no special weight. I am merely bound to express them because I will be called to give account for what I know and say and choose to remain silent about. So I gotta say it, but you don’t gotta believe it.

 

[37818]

However in the case of Romans 5:8 … I simply disagree with your exegesis.

So what is the person who is not a believer who hears Romans 5:8 in a simple public reading going understand it to claim to mean? What does it simply say to a hearer? My exegesis.

 

[atpollard]

So what is the person who is not a believer who hears Romans 5:8 in a simple public reading going understand it to claim to mean? What does it simply say to a hearer? My exegesis.

1. They are not likely to hear a single verse with no context around it. If it is part of a speech, they will hear whatever the speaker has crafted the context to support. If they hear all of Romans 5, they will learn the critical point that Paul was making (which is not about Limited or General atonement).
2. If they are like most people, they will ignore “we” and “us” and hear “I” and “me” … sidestepping Limited or General and being shocked to learn of a Personal Atonement. It will be years before they argue these nuances with other Christians (if they are lucky).

 

[DaveXR650]

You posted that while I was typing. Amen. Also, the first 4 verses of Romans chapter 5 put to rest some of the tendency to be over precise in the way you state salvation. You are justified by faith and obtain access to grace by faith. If Paul can say it that way so can we, whether you're a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a Calminian.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yet arminianism adds man as a co-saviour with man by insisting that a mans believing is his must input along with God to bring about mans salvation

complete RUBBISH!

It is YOUR system known as "reformed/calvinistic", that is teaching a FALSE salvation, where the sinner need not repent and believe before they can be saved, which is against what Jesus Himself clearly teaches, and what the Apostles also did!

You guys disregard what the Bible says, because of your THEOLOGY which is FALSE on salvation, and then use your strawman arguments to try to make your OPINIONS out to be Biblical!

 

[SavedByGrace]

How many times have anti-Calvinists explained what Calvinists believe and shown that we are unbiblical?

It doesn’t really count if you (anyone) are presenting and explaining the beliefs of your opponent. Legitimate discussion requires Calvinists stating and defending Calvinism and Arminians stating and defending Arminianism. Anything else carries the taint of being a ‘parody’.

how about trying to show from the Teachings of the Holy Bible, that your FALSE teachings of salvation are in the Word of God???

 

[SavedByGrace]

[Romans 5:8 ESV] “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

Who is “we” and “us”?
What about that says “everyone without exception”?

Typical reformed MISUSE of the Bible!

This is just ONE verse in the Bible, where Paul is writing to BELIEVERS at the Church in Rome. It is clear to those who are not blinded, that John 3:16, is about "everyone without exception", which is Calvin's very words on this text! YET, even those who call themselves "Calvinists", disregard what Calvin says, because it is not what their WARPED, man-made THEOLOGY teaches!

I have yet to see ONE Calvinist show that John 3:16, is not about God's Saving Love for every single human being! They will try to TWIST this to their own THEOLOGY, but will always FAIL!

Use the WHOLE Bible to show that the Bible says, rather than MISUSE verses for your personal NONSENSE!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Lord is conditional in that He has mercy and compassion on someone ( Romans 9:14-18 ) or He does not...
He is the condition.

WHY is this passage always quoted to try to show, which it does NOT, that God's Mercy is only for the "elect", which it does NOT refer to???

Romans 11:32 is very clear on this:

"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all"

The ALL in both places is the SAME, Jews and Gentiles, which is the entire human race! If you are not the one, the you are the other!

Be honest when quoting what the Bible says, and not just chose those places that suit your "theology"!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I would like to hear people's views on something. Say a guy is just going along, he goes to church or gets into a discussion and suddenly, he feels deeply convicted and realizes his lost condition and realizes he can't undo things he's done so he decides to venture his eternal soul on Jesus and trust in Him to be his savior. Later, someone asks him "What did you do?" He says, "Well, I heard about Jesus, realized I was a sinner, threw myself on His mercy, and believed". He thinks he believed. Is he saved or not.

without REPENTING this person is still very much LOST. Regradless of "reformed theolgy", NO sinner can ever be saved BEFORE they actually REPENT. ANY other way is FALSE!

 

[Brightfame52]

Were you saved without repenting?
Are you REALLY claiming that repentance is “unnecessary”?

(If not, then you should not need to avoid my simple question about your “repentance” being your WORK as a co-savior just as “belief” is the Arminian’s WORK as a co-savior.)


I refuse to latch onto ONE VERSE and use it to deny the rest of the Word of God! I believe that you are making false accusations and am asking you to prove them. Prove “belief” is a WORK and “repentance” is not.

Im not here to talk about me , however judging on what you post publically, you condition salvation on what a person does. Thats works salvation and anti biblical !

 

[Brightfame52]

complete RUBBISH!

It is YOUR system known as "reformed/calvinistic", that is teaching a FALSE salvation, where the sinner need not repent and believe before they can be saved, which is against what Jesus Himself clearly teaches, and what the Apostles also did!

You guys disregard what the Bible says, because of your THEOLOGY which is FALSE on salvation, and then use your strawman arguments to try to make your OPINIONS out to be Biblical!

No its not rubbish, its the truth !