Arminianisms

I'm not sure where you're going with this question, but I beg of you, please don't go into Open Theism, because I will have to start another thread just to lay the smack down on that one.

 

I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly. Noah had nothing to do with Sodom and Gomorrah. Noah existed hundreds of years before Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot was in Sodom and Gomorrah, and Lot was righteous. So, your illustration fails the test of truth.

And God did find righteousness in the time of Noah. He found Noah, and He still destroyed the people. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The "RIGHTEOUSNESS" of a few can "Delay" the destruction of the wicked, just as it would have done for Sodom "IF" any righteousness had been found.

The "end of time" will be a "Repeat" of the "days of Noah".

Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noe (Noah) were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Mt 5:13 Ye (the righteous) are the salt of the earth:

Righteousness (salt) "Preserves" the "FLESH" (meat) from being totally destroyed, (rotten) "for a while", but not "forever".

 

A very wise person (my father-in-law) once told me that we should not try to make a biblical illustration say more than it does in context. The passover was meant to remind Israel of what God had done for them and to point to a future sacrifice. Don't make every little detail of the illustration try to fit or you can come up with some very weird beliefs. As a general rule, you should only interpret the details that the Bible interprets for you.

For instance...
Exodus 12:12-13 For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. 13 'Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

Since the punishment of the death of the firstborn was on all the men AND BEASTS of Egypt, and the salvation of the Israelites involved both people and livestock, then OBVIOUSLY Christ died for animals as well. If they will only believe, animals can be saved, too.

Do you see how absurd this is? But this is what happens when you try to take every little part of a story and use it to illustrate spiritual truth. Events usually have one main point. We are given a few points from the Bible about the Passover.

1) Exodus 12:14 So this day shall be to you a memorial. They were to remember what God had done.

2) 1 Corinthians 5:7 For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. We are to remember what Christ has done.

Since the apostles didn't make too much more of the details that this, we probably shouldn't either. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for your remarks on arminianism. I do appreciate that.
The applying of the blood is used by many commentaries and scholars as a the example of salvation. That the through the blood of Christ we have righteousness which does cause God to not pass His judgement on us becauese of that applied blood which is righteousness. We have the all of scriptures and if there is a contradiction in that illustration we will be ablt to see it. So far it seems to work for many. If you see a flaw in it feel free. I have been wrong before........I think.

Tim

 

Are you going to assume that because someone knows good and evil they are going to choose the good? If so, then you assume more than the Bible says. I agree with the Bible that mankind knows good and evil, just like Romans says that they know God. BUT, I also agree with the Bible that men will not choose what is right unless God intervenes.

 

I did NOT redefine "world" and "all." I simply showed you, using about 30 passages from both the Old and New Testament, that those words have a much broader range of meaning than "every person who has ever lived or ever will live." Get it straight if you are going to post.

 

Are you going to assume that because someone knows good and evil they are going to choose the good? If so, then you assume more than the Bible says. I agree with the Bible that mankind knows good and evil, just like Romans says that they know God. BUT, I also agree with the Bible that men will not choose what is right unless God intervenes. </font>[/QUOTE]Isa 1:19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.

18 Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them.

19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts,

because

they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.

Did the "NATURE" of man change between the OT and NT, Israel had a "FREE WILL CHOICE"???

Ga 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever "A MAN" soweth, that shall he also reap.

Ga 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Calvin/predestination blames God for the "TARE" being in the wheat.

 

As the "PASSOVER LAMB", Jesus protects only the "FIRSTBORN", he suffer the
"STRIPES" of the Church's "Chastisement" in "HIS FLESH", this is why there is a "Pre trib
rapture".

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Israel rejected Jesus, so God uses the AC as a "ROD" to chastise Israel, with "STRIPES", "in
their flesh". (being killed)

Ps 89:32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with
stripes.

Isa 10:5 O Assyrian, (AC) the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is
mine indignation.

For Israel, Jesus is the "SCAPEGOAT", the "GOAT OF SIN" offering is literally "THEIR BODIES".

We sacrifice the "GOAT" (Body) when our "OLD MAN" is crucified,

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin
(flesh) might be destroyed,

Israel will "literally" Sacrifice their "BODIES" to be saved, this is the "STRIPES" in
"THEIR FLESH" inflicted by the "ROD". (AC)

Re 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb,

and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Re 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that
were slain for the word of God,

Jesus, as "PASSOVER LAMB", made "ATONEMENT" in HIS FLESH for his BRIDE,
the church, she will "PASSOVER" (rapture) the next "DAY OF ATONEMENT" or trib period.

Israel will enter the trib and make "ATONEMENT" in "THEIR FLESH" for rejecting him. (God)

I'd suggest a study of the "FEAST DAYS".

 

I think you make a better pt then I Me4HIm. Let us not make TOO light of things.

great post!

 

Christ never used the words grace, believe, or faith? That's a new one on me! As I assume the Lord Jeus Christ is the one to whom you are referring, and since "never" is extremely broad, I'll challenge this, a bit.

Paul gave testimony to receiving an answer from "the Lord" of "My grace is sufficient for thee..." (I Cor. 12:9) Unless "the Lord" is here different from some other uses of "the Lord" where Paul refers to the Lord Jesus Christ as "the Lord", I'd assume this qualifies. That's a use of 'grace'.

How about 'believe'- any uses there? I dunno' would John 3:16 -probably the best known verse in the entire Bible count? In fact, I find 'believe' 5 times in John 3:15-18, alone. So I'd assume that is a use of 'believe'. Or so it would seem to me. He also uses believe several times at the resurrection of Lazarus, and at least four times speaking with Thomas.

Trying for number three- 'faith'. Is it there? Yep! Over twenty times, in fact. And two of them specifically say, "...your faith has saved you..." (Luke 7:50; 18:42) Three out of three so far!

You asked if I cared to argue with Christ? Not me. Wouldn't have time to, what with all the arguments on the Baptist Bored. And Language Cop says 'Bored' is NOT mispelled, here.
So we can put this one to rest, IMO. I'd guess the Lord knew what he was saying.
In His grace,
Ed

 

Me4Him

Nice picture!

Ed

 

Hello Me4Him.

Is this the passage in question? Does 'grieve' mean repent? You say 'not'. So if 'grieve' does not mean 'repent' why are you saying God changed His mind?

I wasn't aware that we were talking about 'world' but your statement is strange, which definition of 'world' does not mean 'world' please?
'World' is mentioned 53 times in John and 231 times in the bible as a whole. Which word should we replace it with? Does it always mean everyman ever born, or not, in all those passages?

If 'grieve' does not mean 'repent' why are you saying God changed His mind? But I asked you for the definition of God's repentance and you have not answered me.

This is the problem I see you have. If God repented and that repentance is a change in God then Malachi was wrong when he said God never changes. You have the problem because you openly support contradictory statements whereas I do not know what it means. Does that make sense to you?

Now you have said that you believe God knew who was going to Hell before He created them yet He does not repent of that? His repentance here, whatever that repentance means, meant sudden death not life.

It would mean that I must know what you think before I can answer that. Your descripture of Him to me is different to the One I have so that when you say God I do not recognise my God.

john.

 

Is this the passage in question? Does 'grieve' mean repent? You say 'not'. So if 'grieve' does not mean 'repent' why are you saying God changed His mind?

I wasn't aware that we were talking about 'world' but your statement is strange, which definition of 'world' does not mean 'world' please?
'World' is mentioned 53 times in John and 231 times in the bible as a whole. Which word should we replace it with? Does it always mean everyman ever born, or not, in all those passages?
john. </font>[/QUOTE]1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins:
and not for ours only, (the saved)

but also for the sins of the whole (unsaved) world.

If God didn't send Jesus to condemn the the "WORLD" and Jesus died for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD" that the whole world "Might be" saved,

How much of an "IQ" would it require to figure out the "World" God loved, was the "WHOLE WORLD"??

Calvinist can't explain where/how the "EIGHTH DAY" originated, God worked six days then "RESTED" on the "Seventh", so where/how did an "EIGHTH DAY" enter into the scripture??



BTW, Jesus was also "Resurrected" on the "EIGHTH DAY", First day of the week. (8th)

You'll find the answer here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3398.html

 

What does propitiation mean Me4Him? If propitiation means what it means why isn't the world saved? Then it wasn't propitiation was it?

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins:
and not for ours only, (the Jews) but also for the sins of the whole (the Jews and the Gentiles) world.

Because propitiation means : the self-sacrifice and death of Jesus Christ to appease divine justice and to effect reconciliation between God and man

The act of Jesus was God appeasing God and He succeeded in appeasing Him by dying for me. He did not die for everyman otherwise everman is saved. Your job is now to get out of propitiation and turn it into 'not' propitiation.

My comprehension is under strain again.

No IQ is neccessary to believe He was the propitiation of everyman that ever lived and none is required. It is a figment of your imagination and a pretty powerful delusion as the words you use mean one thing which you wish to mean another.
The sacrifice of atonement was given on behalf of the Israelites who only needed to be Israelites as long as God had not disqualified any, as Eli's family were.

Are you an eighth day adventist? One up on the old seveners? I have no questions about the eight day whatever that is as I have enough problems with the usual seven. But you speak without scripture. Who says Adam didn't fall on the seventh day and where is there mention of an eight day in the ole scriptures?

Well that is a thing to remember as most people, and I mean most people, regard that day as the first day of the week. You have created a new improved dictionary and a calender? Boy, you are smart.

I have no questions about the "EIGHTH DAY".

MT 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
Mk 16:2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
MK 16:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.
LK 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
JN 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
JN 20:19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

I have no questions about the "EIGHTH DAY" as Jesus has already pulled the rug from beneath this. I think He wanted it known without doubt that it was the first day of the week He "Resurrected" Himself.

john.

 

My post has not been responded to Me4Him.

Hello Me4Him.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I "guess" not, World doesn't mean world, All isn't ALL, repent isn't repent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this the passage in question? Does 'grieve' mean repent? You say 'not'. So if 'grieve' does not mean 'repent' why are you saying God changed His mind?

I wasn't aware that we were talking about 'world' but your statement is strange, which definition of 'world' does not mean 'world' please?
'World' is mentioned 53 times in John and 231 times in the bible as a whole. Which word should we replace it with? Does it always mean everyman ever born, or not, in all those passages?

If 'grieve' does not mean 'repent' why are you saying God changed His mind? But I asked you for the definition of God's repentance and you have not answered me.

This is the problem I see you have. If God repented and that repentance is a change in God then Malachi was wrong when he said God never changes. You have the problem because you openly support contradictory statements whereas I do not know what it means. Does that make sense to you?

Now you have said that you believe God knew who was going to Hell before He created them yet He does not repent of that? His repentance here, whatever that repentance means, meant sudden death not life.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does God mean GOD, or something else???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would mean that I must know what you think before I can answer that. Your descripture of Him to me is different to the One I have so that when you say God I do not recognise my God.

john.

 

You ask a good question. Where/how did an "EIGHTH DAY" enter into the Scripture??

I'm going to ask another one - Now who is making up a theology with no Scriptural support?

Again, nice chart that means absolutely nothing unless you buy into the "day = 1thousandyears" theory.

 

You ask a good question. Where/how did an "EIGHTH DAY" enter into the Scripture??

I'm going to ask another one - Now who is making up a theology with no Scriptural support?

Again, nice chart that means absolutely nothing unless you buy into the "day = 1thousandyears" theory. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't you think you should learn the "FACTS" before referring to it as "Theory"???

The "TRUTH" will be manifested, and the only options you, me, or anyone else have, is to learn that truth, so not only the truth will be manifested in due time, but "US" as well.

You have to approach the Bible as "ignorant/humble" as a "child" before the "Spirit" will teach.

Man's writing/opinions influence most doctrines today rather than "God's writing" (bible) influenced by the "Holy Ghost".

And that's a "Truth" that will be manifested in the very near future.

 

How in the world (that's a use of the word that doesn't mean "every single person who ever has or ever will live") can you call a theological view that is and has been rejected or ignored by a majority of the church for 2,000 years a "fact?" Especially when it involves something in the future and a hermeneutical approach that is, at best, suspect?

 

A theology based on an ambiguous word is doomed. World is an ambiguous word unless it always means everyone who ever lived. Does it Me4Him? Does it mean everyone who ever lived, 231 times in the bible?

A few words without ambiguity: Atonement, predestination, propitiation, election, chosen, reborn, transformed.

There is no evidence to support your contention that what you say is not a theory but fact. A fact can be proved. We have proved ourselves approved of God and for that I thank you. It is the Lord that convinces.

john.

 

World
WORLD, n. [This seems to be a compound word, and probably is named from roundness, the vault; but this is not certain.]

1. The universe; the whole system of created globes or vast bodies of matter.

2. The earth; the terraqueous globe; sometimes called the lower world.

3. The heavens; as when we speak of the heavenly world, or upper world.

4. System of beings; or the orbs which occupy space, and all the beings which inhabit them. Heb 11.

5. Present state of existence; as while we are in the world.

6. A secular life. By the world we sometimes understand the things of this world, its pleasures and interests. A great part of mankind are more anxious to enjoy the world to than secure divine favor.

7. Public life, or society; as banished from the world.

8. Business or trouble of life.

9. A great multitude or quantity; as a world of business; a world of charms.

10. Mankind; people in general; in an indefinite sense. Let the world see your fortitude.

11. Course of life. He begins the world with little property, but with many friends.

12. Universal empire.

13. The customs and manners of men; the practice of life. A knowledge of the world is necessary for a man of business; it is essential to politeness.

14. All the world contains.

15. The principal nations or countries of the earth. Alexander conquered the world.

16. The Roman empire.

17. A large tract of country; a wide compass of things.

18. The inhabitants of the earth; the whole human race. John 3.

19. The carnal state or corruption of the earth; as the present evil world; the course of this world. Gal 1. Eph 2.

20. The ungodly part of the world.

21. Time; as in the phrase, world without end.

22. A collection of wonders. [Not in use.]


I see no definition where "world" means "believers", as calvinists contend, or where it always means "everyone who ever lived" as calvinists try to make the only use of the word "world" by non calvinist's.